clone_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions safeguards and force flag to bypass them, but does not specify what the safeguards are, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting data), or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action. The argument list is clearly formatted, though the opening could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on preconditions (e.g., target project existence), error handling, and the nature of safeguards, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description essentially repeats the schema descriptions, adding no extra meaning or context beyond what is already in the structured input.

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 copies project configuration (categories and collections) from one project to another. It specifies the verb 'clone' and identifies the resources involved, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual categories or permissions.

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 mentions merge and replace modes with safeguards, but does not explicitly state when to use each mode or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the target project must exist) or when not to use the tool.

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