Projects Clone Project Schedule

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description usefully adds what is copied, but omits notable behavior: calling it twice with the same source presumably creates two separate projects (non-idempotent), and it does not say whether assignments/tasks or only budget/timeline/phases are carried over.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, that enumerates the copied artifacts without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves meaningful gaps: the role of client_id and whether new_start_date re-bases the timeline are unexplained for a clone operation.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only loosely implies source_project_id and target_project_name via 'duplicate ... to a new project'; it says nothing about client_id or, more importantly, whether new_start_date shifts the cloned timeline or preserves relative dates.

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 (Duplicate) and enumerates exactly what is copied (budget settings, timeline, phase milestone structure) into a new project, which is far more informative than the bare name. It is not explicitly distinguished from siblings like projects_create_project, so it falls just 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?

The description says what the tool does but never says when to use it versus projects_create_project, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. the source project must exist, required permissions). No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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