Duplicate project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a job and finishes asynchronously, and clarifies which elements are always copied vs optional. It does not mention whether the original project is modified (assumed safe), auth needs, or rate limits. Decent coverage but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, each earned: purpose, automatic content, special usage note, and asynchronous behavior. Front-loaded with the verb 'Copy a project'. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, key constraints (always-copied items), optional parameters, and async job response. It could mention that the original project remains unchanged and how to poll the job, but given the complexity, it's sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds context: it explains that the 'include' parameter adds optional elements beyond the always-carried-over ones, and clarifies the return type (job). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Copy a project' with specific details: tasks, views, and rules are always carried over. It distinguishes from siblings like project_create (which creates blank projects) by noting this is the only way to get a preconfigured Dashboard. Clear verb+resource+unique behavior.

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 explains that the tool is the only way to give a new project a preconfigured Dashboard, providing a strong use case. It lists always-carried-over elements but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives (e.g., project_create for a blank project). Context signals from sibling tools help, but the description could be more explicit.

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