Clone Bid Board Project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the new object with HTTP 201, but does not go beyond the annotations to disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. No contradiction.

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 concise with a few sentences that clearly convey the purpose, required parameters, and return behavior. No unnecessary fluff.

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 simple clone operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, required inputs, and the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not explain the behavior of the optional 'name' parameter when omitted, which is a minor gap.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description lists the required parameters (bid_board_project_id, company_id, as_template) but does not add any new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Clone Bid Board project' and 'duplicate an existing Bid Board records as a new record', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_bid_board_project (new from scratch) and update_bid_board_project (modify).

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 tells when to use this tool (to duplicate records), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like create or update. Usage context is clear, but lacks exclusions.

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