save_project_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the path-root restriction and non-relocation behavior, but does not explain what 'verified' means, how overwrite behaves, what mode controls, or what happens if the destination already exists.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, including the verified-copy constraint and the project-root restriction, is relevant to selecting or invoking the tool.

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 output schema means return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It leaves mode, overwrite, verification behavior, and destination-path validation unexplained.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for all three parameters. It only indirectly touches output_path by saying the copy must be inside SP_MCP_PROJECT_ROOTS, and says nothing about mode or overwrite.

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 states a specific verb and resource: save a verified .spp copy. It also distinguishes the operation from relocating the project, which helps separate it from save_project in practice, though it does not explicitly name that 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?

The phrase 'without relocating the project' implies this tool is for making a copy while keeping the active project in place. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of save_project or what conditions make a copy the right choice.

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