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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is an inert, unpublished project that 'reaches nobody' until opened, which is important state information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information about the inactive state. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle behavior well but omits the return value (e.g., new project id) and says nothing about the optional name parameter. An agent can invoke it with template_id alone, so it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: template_id is documented in the schema ('from list_templates'), but the 'name' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all — it doesn't explain that name sets the new project's title or what happens if name is omitted (default null). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Create a project from a template,' which is clear and distinguishable from plain create_project by the 'from a template' qualifier. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling clone_project, so an agent must infer that this one uses a template rather than an existing project.

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 states a useful sequencing fact — the cloned project stays inactive until open_project — which implicitly tells the agent what to do next. However, it never says when to prefer clone_template over create_project or clone_project, so selection guidance is only implied.

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