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

Annotations only establish write/non-destructive/non-idempotent. The description goes well beyond: all-or-nothing single transaction with rollback semantics, automatic next project number, and default naming convention. These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the copied/not-copied distinction, then the naming and transaction guarantees. The enumeration is dense but every clause carries distinct information; only the tier label at the end is marginal.

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 2-parameter tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, defaults, and atomicity. It does not say what identifier or object the caller receives back, which would close the last gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default naming and the fact the copy receives the next project number, though the name default is largely duplicated from the schema's own description.

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 ('Duplicate'), resource ('a project's STRUCTURE'), and endpoint, and immediately clarifies it copies structure rather than creating a fresh project. An agent can distinguish it from create_project or apply_template 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?

Explicit about what is and isn't copied ('task lists, not a work order's own lists', 'tasks, never coordination cards', 'nothing that happened is copied'), which effectively tells an agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the opposite need, so not a 5.

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