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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the copy is independent and later changes by the template author do not reach it. It also states that documents and board are included in the copy. This is valuable behavioral context that the agent would not otherwise know from openWorldHint or destructiveHint.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core action, the behavioral independence guarantee, and a critical usage instruction. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 that the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It explains what gets copied, that the copy is independent, and how to resolve the one ambiguous input (orgId) by pointing to list_orgs.

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 name, slug, and orgId adequately. The description adds practical guidance that orgId should be obtained via list_orgs rather than guessing, which is helpful, but it does not add substantial new meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Copy'), a specific resource ('a published template'), and the result ('into one of the user's organizations as a new project, with its documents and board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_templates or get_template, which only read or browse templates.

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 gives clear context: use this to copy a published template into an organization. It also tells the agent to ask which organization to use rather than guess, and explicitly points to list_orgs for ids. It does not, however, explicitly mention when to prefer create_project or browse_templates instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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