copy_project

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the asynchronous background-job behavior, the need to poll get_job_status with job_status_id, and that rejected validation previews are not MCP errors but should be inspected via ready and validation_errors. These are high-value, non-obvious behavioral details.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter scoping, then async job behavior, then validation-error handling. Every sentence carries necessary information.

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 a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: preview versus confirmed execution, background polling, and validation results. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter documentation is already strong. The description adds useful grouping by saying name, identifier, and optional fields describe the new project, but it largely reiterates schema-level confirm semantics rather than adding substantially new parameter guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: copy an existing project into a new project. It is clear and distinguishable from generic create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It explains the confirm-preview workflow and says to poll get_job_status after a confirmed copy. It does not explicitly contrast with create_project or list when copying is preferable, but the operating context is clear.

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