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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations: it states the copy has its own S3 namespace (so source changes don't affect the duplicate), describes the default title creation logic, explains folder placement behavior, mentions return values (id, title), and provides concurrency constraints. This fully characterizes the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (main action, defaults, return value, concurrency). It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance. Front-loading the main action helps quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers the major behavioral aspects: copy scope, isolation, defaults, return format, and serialization advice. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. Minor omissions (e.g., error cases, permission requirements) are acceptable given the annotations and schema.

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 100%, but the description adds crucial context: the interplay between new_title and folder_id (e.g., title preserved when explicit folder_id given, otherwise '(copy)' suffix), and the folder_id behavior (same folder if omitted, empty string moves to root). This explains edge cases and defaults that the schema alone does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('entire project'), lists what is copied (clips, voiceovers, assets, metadata), and distinguishes from related tools like create_project and duplicate_clip by implying full project duplication. The S3 namespace detail further clarifies the isolation behavior.

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 provides clear defaults for when to omit new_title or folder_id, and gives explicit concurrency guidance: serialize against other mutations on the same source_project_id. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (full project copy) vs alternatives (e.g., duplicate_clip for single clips), but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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