rm_clone_project_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety traits. It adds that phases, milestones, and assignments are copied, which is useful, but it leaves side effects ambiguous—such as whether the new project is created automatically, whether the source is modified, and how client_id and new_start_date affect the clone.

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 core action appears first, and every word contributes meaning—ideal for an agent scanning for the tool's role.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and four parameters, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of optional parameters and does not clarify whether the target project is created or pre-existing. An output schema covers return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It does not define source_project_id, target_project_name, client_id, or new_start_date beyond their self-explanatory names; client_id and new_start_date are completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing at their role in the cloning process.

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 action ('Duplicate') and a precise resource ('project phases, milestone structure, and assignments') with a clear target ('a new project'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like rm_create_project or rm_create_project_phase, and no other sibling covers cloning.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Duplicate' and the object 'to a new project', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as rm_create_project for creating an empty project. An agent would have to infer when cloning is appropriate.

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