copy_project_structure

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint is false, destructiveHint is false, and openWorldHint is true. The description clarifies it is a copying tool (not destructive, but creates new resources) and explicitly states no cards are copied, which is important behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by an explicit usage guideline and an illustrative example. Each sentence adds value, though the example could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the high schema coverage, output schema exists (covering return values), and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool copies, what it doesn't, when to use it, and an example distinguishing it from alternatives. No gaps remain for an agent to select or invoke correctly.

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 context by explaining the significance of copying column types versus just naming, which adds meaning beyond schema descriptions. It also implies that source_project_id is the template, aligning with the parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool clones a project's layout (columns with types and order) and optionally labels/members, and explicitly says no cards are copied. This distinguishes it from create_project by emphasizing it copies structure, not creating from scratch.

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 description explicitly says 'Prefer this over create_project when an existing project is the template' and explains why copying a column is different from naming one 'Done', providing concrete guidance on when to use this tool over the alternative.

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