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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: the PRO+ entitlement requirement and the side effect that the caller automatically becomes project owner. It does not mention that repeated calls create separate projects (consistent with idempotentHint=false) or what is returned.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause. The gating note, required inputs, and ownership side effect each earn their place.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the entitlement gate, required inputs, date format, and ownership consequence. It omits what the caller gets back (e.g. new project id) and any failure conditions, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the three inputs and the YYYY-MM-DD format, which duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Create a new project from a template'), and the 'from a template' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from create_project and duplicate_project. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with one, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '(PRO+ feature)' note gives a plan-level precondition for use, which is useful gating information. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over create_project or duplicate_project, leaving the alternative routing to inference.

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