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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the database is unavailable for roughly 30 seconds and its backups start afterward. It does not say whether detaching is reversible or what happens to the link on the parent side.

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?

One sentence plus a scope tag, with the key operational fact (30-second unavailability) front-loaded after the action statement. No filler; the 'Scope: vms.action' note is compact and informative.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential operational detail (downtime, backup behavior). Missing only reversibility and the explicit relationship to fork_database.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Database id, as returned by list_databases or create_database'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing further about the database argument, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it gives a linked fork its own copy of the data, which is distinct from the sibling fork_database (which creates a fork). The 'linked fork' phrasing implies the parent relationship without naming fork_database explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable 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?

Usage is only implied: you run this on an existing linked fork. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to fork_database as the tool that produces the linked fork this operates on.

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