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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: authentication is required, anonymous callers get AuthRequired, and the return value includes the new skill's id and lineage metadata. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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 with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the authentication note and return value are stated compactly. 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?

The description covers the action, the ownership outcome, authentication requirements, and the return value. With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, this is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the template is not public or if the caller already owns a skill with the same name, but those are edge cases.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the identifier format (UUID, @handle/slug, @handle/slug@vN) and the default behavior for name and version, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fork') and resource ('a public template into a private skill owned by the caller'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_template, archive_template, or publish_template_version. It also specifies the ownership outcome, which is the core purpose.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to create a private skill from a public template. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'Fork' and the target 'private skill owned by the caller' make the use case clear. It also notes authentication is required, which is a usage prerequisite.

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