pvsyst_clone_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that embedded site/meteo snapshots and external component references are preserved, which is valuable context for a clone operation, but it omits key mutation behavior such as what happens if new_project already exists, whether source is modified, and any permission or failure semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by preservation details. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers the high-level copy scope and preservation behavior, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters with zero schema coverage, it leaves important gaps around identifier formats, overwrite behavior, and result expectations.

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 0% and the parameter titles are tautological ('Source Project', 'New Project'). The description does not add format guidance, naming requirements, or constraints for either required parameter, so it only weakly implies that source_project is copied into new_project.

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?

The description gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: create a new project by copying an existing PRJ plus all its VC variants. It implicitly differentiates from pvsyst_create_project and pvsyst_clone_variant by mentioning copying the full project and all variants, but it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the copy semantics: use this when a full project and all its variants should be duplicated. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over pvsyst_create_project or pvsyst_clone_variant, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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