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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It explicitly states that the copy is independent of the template ('Changes to the copy do not touch your template'), that nothing is sent, that the form is not added to the client portal, that no confirmation is asked, and that the user's Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are all behavioral traits not captured by the structured fields.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then efficiently covers what the call does not do (sending, portal addition), the return value, the independence of the copy, and the required key. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, the side effects, the output identifier, the lack of destructive impact, and the authentication requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that project_id comes from list_projects and template_id from list_form_templates (though the schema also repeats this). It also clarifies the output, the form_id, but does not describe the parameter types or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the parameter burden, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a project copy of a proposal, contract, questionnaire or sub-agreement') and immediately clarifies what it produces ('returns its form_id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling send_form by emphasizing that nothing is sent. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description names the alternative tool ('Send it with send_form') and states the condition that changes the action ('Nothing is sent and the form is not added to the client portal'). It does not, however, discuss when you might want a copy versus another form operation, leaving a bit of the usage context implied.

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