duplicate_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It never warns that the default behavior (resetDates=true, clearCompleted=true) wipes all dates and resets every task to incomplete — a materially destructive default — nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or what happens when folderName is ambiguous.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no repetition of schema content. The middle sentence on templates is the weakest but still carries a use-case signal.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits the sourceProjectId/sourceProjectName fallback, the folderName ambiguity-failure behavior, and the date-reset defaults an agent must know before calling.

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 the ten parameters including the nested shiftDates object are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes two of them ('date shifting', 'hierarchy preservation') without adding format or interaction detail such as shiftDates overriding resetDates.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Create a copy of a project including all its tasks' — which clearly separates it from add_project or get_project_by_id. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

'Useful for templates and recurring workflows' hints at a scenario but never states when to prefer this over add_project or batch_add_items, and gives no preconditions such as needing a source project identifier. Usage is only implied.

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