Duplicate project

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

The description clarifies that ALL files are copied and that the copy may land in a team, which goes slightly beyond the annotations. With annotations already declaring non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, the remaining burden is low, but it doesn't say whether the source is left untouched, what happens on name collision, or what the caller gets back (e.g. the new project id).

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; the resource and action come first and the team option is a compact qualifier. It could carry one more clarifying clause without becoming bloated.

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 quiet mutation tool with three params and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves key questions unanswered: whether the original is preserved, what the response contains, and any permission or quota constraints. Adequate, not complete.

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 67%: project_id and name are documented in the schema, team_id is not. The phrase "optionally into a team" supplies the missing semantics for team_id, which is genuine added value, but nothing is said about how name defaults if omitted or what team_id format is expected.

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?

"Copy a project (all files) into a new project" gives a specific verb (copy/duplicate) and resource (project), plus the scope of what gets copied. It reads clearly against siblings like typst_create_project, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only: the agent can infer this is for duplicating rather than creating or downloading a project. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to an alternative (e.g. typst_create_project + typst_upload_file).

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