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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description goes far beyond them by enumerating exactly what is carried over (tasks, dependencies, epics, sprints, milestones, tags, custom fields), what is reset (all tasks to To do, project to Planning, caller becomes owner), and what is deliberately left behind (comments, attachments, risks, baselines, sharing grants, syncs). It also discloses ownership effects and the returned `url`.

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?

Purpose and examples are front-loaded, and the dense enumeration of copied vs. left-behind data is information-dense rather than padded. It is long and could be split into bullets, but nearly every clause carries a distinct behavioral fact.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, limits, ownership changes, reversibility (Undo), and the shape of the result (`url`). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning the schema lacks: `people=true` makes the source's owner join as a manager, and `startDate` shifts every date by the same whole days while omitting it leaves dates unchanged. These consequences go beyond the schema's terse field notes.

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 and resource ('Make a copy of an existing project as a new project') and immediately differentiates itself from the nearest sibling, save_project_as_template, by contrasting what each preserves. An agent can select between them 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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios ('copy last quarter's launch project'), an explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-save_project_as_template rule, and refusal conditions (5000+ tasks, Maker app). It also notes the copy counts toward the plan's project limit and that Undo deletes the copy, so the agent knows the trade-offs.

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