vk_put_projects_60535a93f674

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It transparently lists what is copied (tasks, files, kanban data, assignees, comments, attachments, labels, relations, backgrounds, permissions, link shares), states that authentication is required, and specifies permission needs. It does not explicitly state that the original project is left unchanged, but this is strongly implied by 'copying' to a new project.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it starts with the core action, then details the REST endpoint, the copied elements, permissions, and invocation details. Every sentence adds value, though the list of copied items is a bit long. It is appropriately sized for a complex operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, what it copies, required permissions, authentication, and how to supply parameters. The only notable gap is the body optionality contradiction, which prevents a perfect score. Return value is not described, but this is less critical as no output schema exists and the action is a duplicate operation.

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 descriptions are present for all parameters, but they are terse ('The target parent project...' and 'The project ID to duplicate Required.'). The description adds useful context about accepting camelCase and snake_case aliases and that payload goes in the body. However, it calls the body 'optional' while the schema lists it as required, creating a direct contradiction that undermines parameter clarity.

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 opens with 'Duplicate an existing project,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It further specifies the exact REST endpoint (PUT /projects/{projectID}/duplicate) and enumerates what gets copied, distinguishing it from generic project creation/update tools.

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 clearly implies usage for duplicating a project, and it provides essential prerequisite guidance (read access in the source project, write access in the parent of the new project). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the duplication focus is unambiguous and the permission requirements help the agent decide when it can be used.

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