clone_project

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the backup+restore process and the validate parameter, but does not explain whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what happens to existing backups.

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 clear structure: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args and Returns section. Every line adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 an output schema present, the description adequately explains the return values. However, it omits error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., source project must exist), and the effect of the 'validate' parameter on behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (project_id, name, validate), adding purpose beyond the schema types. However, it lacks details on constraints or format.

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 the tool's action: 'Clone a project by backing it up and restoring it with a new name.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup_project, restore_project_backup, and validate_project_backup.

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 implies usage when duplicating a project, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project or backup_project. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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