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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the original stays untouched, the copy is placed adjacent in the same folder, it returns the new project_id plus an editor/render link, and that id should be threaded into subsequent calls. That is a full workflow contract beyond what the annotations encode.

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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage, then side effects, then return value and next step. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (project_id, editor/render link). Combined with the folder default and the original-untouched guarantee, an agent has everything needed to invoke and chain this tool correctly.

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 name, folder, and project_id are already documented with their defaults and formats. The description reinforces the folder behavior ('next to it in the same folder') and naming intent, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Copies) and resource (a project), enumerates what the resource can be (image, film, launch video), and spells out what is carried over (devices, screenshots, song, blocks) plus where the copy lands (next to it in the same folder). An agent can distinguish this from create_project without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the intended case (a variant the user wants beside the original, with concrete examples like another song/color/language) and the alternative (create_project or create_launch_video for something new). It even routes the agent to the follow-up tools (edit_scene, update_launch_video) for modifying the copy.

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