Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious side effects an agent must plan around: the copy receives its own secret API key, and webhooks, integrations, API keys and content are NOT carried over (implying follow-up calls). It also flags a cross-project auth requirement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the payload inventory, the exclusions, and finally the permission prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no restatement of the tool name or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope, side effects, and auth well. The remaining gap is the return value: it doesn't say whether the new project object or just an ID comes back, nor what happens if the source project ID is invalid. Minor, but it is exactly the kind of thing a no-output-schema tool should state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% for a single nested `request` object containing `id` and `body.name`. The description implies a source project must be identified but adds nothing about the `name` parameter or the '(copy)' default behavior, leaving the schema's own inline text to carry the parameter burden. Baseline 3 for effectively undocumented-in-description parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a project') and then enumerates exactly what the copy includes (settings, channels, policies, rules, wordlists, moderation actions, review queues) and what it excludes (webhooks, integrations, API keys, content). That inclusion/exclusion split is what separates this from projects-create and the various *-create siblings without the agent needing to open another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes the condition for use (copying an existing configuration into a new project) and states the prerequisite: the `projects:write` permission plus a key that reaches all projects. It doesn't explicitly name projects-create or channels-duplicate as the alternative for 'build from scratch' or 'copy one channel', so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.