box_fork

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds value by specifying the fork source ('latest snapshot') and the behavioral note that 'isolated forks always use noEnv'. This goes beyond the annotations but could be more explicit about side effects or return 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence is front-loaded with the purpose, and the second adds a useful caveat. It earns its keep with minimal length.

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 is sufficient for basic invocation with the documented parameters, but lacks any mention of return values, errors, or what the fork operation produces. Given the lack of an output schema and the potential ambiguity of 'isolated forks', the description feels moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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% for the two parameters (boxId, env). The description adds extra context ('isolated forks always use noEnv') that is not present in the schema, clarifying the behavior of the env parameter and the isolated fork scenario.

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 clearly states a specific action ('fork a box') and its source ('from its latest snapshot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_create (new box) and box_resume (resume existing).

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives or any prerequisite/exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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