copy_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully disclose behavior beyond the name: it preserves media references, assigns a fresh projectId, and never overwrites. It omits permissions/authorization needs, what happens on a name collision, and any return/error behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (location, preservation, new id, non-overwrite) adds actionable 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation behavior reasonably but leaves the two parameters unexplained and says nothing about failure modes or the resulting copy's identity. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the two required params ('project' and 'name'), so the description must compensate and does not. It explains the generated projectId but never clarifies that 'project' is the source to copy or what 'name' designates for the copy.

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 editable project copy') and scopes it to the desktop Projects directory, which clearly separates it from siblings like open_project, list_projects, and delete_zooms. It does not explicitly name or contrast against alternatives, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools (e.g. open_project for viewing vs copy_project for duplicating). The description only says what it does when invoked, leaving the agent to infer that this is the duplication path.

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