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

The annotations only provide generic false hints, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses that the tool creates a new project you own, preserves a lineage link, and is restricted to public projects. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it does not cover failure/error behavior.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by usage context and the constraint/alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the core function, when to use it, the public-project constraint, and how to handle your own projects. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., new project ID), but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already describes projectId as 'The public project to fork' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the 'public' constraint but adds little new information about the parameter itself. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameter.

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 action ('Fork a PUBLIC project into a new one you own') and distinguishes this from copying your own project by pointing to an alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like get_project and save_project.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('start from someone else's published model') and when not to ('to copy one of your own, read it and save the tree as a new project'). It also states the precondition that only public projects can be remixed. This is complete usage guidance.

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