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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new context: it consumes the plan's project quota and requires only read access on the source. It stops short of describing naming collisions with an existing project or whether the copy is immediate.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is copied, the quota cost, and the permission rule. The action is front-loaded with zero 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, the description gives the essentials an agent needs — scope of the copy, quota impact, and authorization. Only edge-case behavior (duplicate naming, async completion) is left unspecified.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a project UUID sourced from list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Copy') and resource ('a project (files and settings)'), and clarifies the output is a new project owned by the caller named after the original. This clearly separates it from create_project (blank/new) or use_template (template-based), which are the nearest siblings.

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?

Implies usage via 'Any member with read access may duplicate,' which gives an eligibility condition, but never states when to prefer duplicate_project over create_project or use_template, nor any exclusions. The reader must infer the alternative routing.

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