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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent profile, so the description must add value beyond that. It does: tier gating, an explicit authorization requirement, and the capture semantics (tasks, subtasks, relative date offsets). It omits that repeated calls create independent templates and does not describe the return value.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by gating/permission and capture semantics. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema where the safety profile is covered by annotations and parameters by the schema. The description adds the tier gate, authorization precondition, and capture scope, which is nearly everything an agent needs; only the post-call return is unaddressed.

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 every parameter (name, category, isPublic, projectId, description) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, 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: 'Save an existing project as a reusable template,' and adds scope detail that the template captures top-level tasks and subtasks with relative date offsets. This is enough to distinguish it from instantiate_template/update_template without opening either schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear conditions for use: PRO+ feature gating and the requirement that the caller be OWNER or MANAGER on the project. It does not state when-not to use it or point to alternatives such as duplicate_project or update_template, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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