project_save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors beyond the name: the source must already be saved to disk, and the new project is opened as a side effect (changing active state). It says nothing about whether unsaved in-memory changes are carried over, overwrite handling if the id exists, or what is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and ending with the state side effect. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, and it flags the open-on-create side effect. Missing failure modes and the fate of unsaved changes leave real gaps for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 100% and already labels project_id as 'Source project id' and name as 'New project name', so the description adds little beyond that baseline. It does confirm the duplication framing, but no format or constraint details are supplied.

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 and resource: duplicate a project's saved .ioc into a new project id. An agent can distinguish this from project_save (writes the existing file) and project_create (blank project) from the description alone, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Implies the precondition and the use case (a saved .ioc must exist, and the goal is a copy under a new id), but never names alternatives such as project_create or project_export_script, nor says when not to use it.

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