asana_duplicate_project

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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the description's main contribution is clarifying the operation returns an async job. This is critical for the caller to know the result is not immediate and provides useful behavior beyond annotation defaults.

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 sentences with no unnecessary text. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence explains the include parameter and async return, giving high information density without redundancy.

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?

Although the description covers the basic action and return type, it leaves gaps: it does not explain how to interact with the async job (e.g., polling via asana_get_job), and the phrase 'clone a board with its structure' is ambiguous about whether tasks are included or only empty structure. With no output schema, these missing details reduce self-sufficiency.

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%, so each parameter already has a documented meaning. The description only adds detail for the 'include' parameter with an example list of allowed fields and clarifies it can be an array or comma string, which is a modest enhancement beyond the 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 clearly specifies the action ('Duplicate') and the resource ('existing project'), with a parenthetical clarifying it means cloning a board and its structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_project, update_project, and duplicate_task.

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 the use case (copying an existing project) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor list any exclusions or preconditions. Usage is inferred from the action rather than guided.

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