asana_instantiate_project_template

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the operation returns an async job whose new_project field holds the created project, signaling that results may not be immediate. Since annotations already establish non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, this extra disclosure about async execution is valuable.

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 deliver action, context, and return shape with no redundant wording. The parenthetical 'repeatable board setup' earns its place by clarifying the template concept, and the return behavior sentence is essential.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned (async job with new_project), which is enough to know how to retrieve the result. It does not cover asynchronous polling or error handling, but for a four-parameter tool with well-documented inputs, this is reasonable.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description does not elaborate on parameter relationships or business rules, sticking to the baseline where the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project from a project template,' which clearly distinguishes it from blank project creation and task template instantiation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like asana_create_project or asana_instantiate_task_template, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It neither names sibling tools nor states conditions such as 'use for repeatable setups' as a routing rule, so the agent receives no usage context beyond the action itself.

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