project_copy

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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: origin provenance is preserved and reused claims require new review. However, it omits permissions needed, effects on the target project, and the 1000-record limit.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slight terseness leaves key details unstated rather than being concise by choice.

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?

For a write tool with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description gives only partial coverage. It discloses the review requirement but leaves parameter meaning and side effects on the target project unaddressed.

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% and there are 3 required parameters (sourceProjectId, targetProjectId, recordIds). The description only hints at 'another project' and 'evidence'; it never maps source vs target or explains recordIds, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 clear verb+resource: reusing (copying) evidence into another project. It is distinguishable from a generic transfer, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling project_transfer, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as project_transfer or project_restore. The agent must infer when copying is preferable to transferring.

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