fork_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool creates a new project by copying database, functions, site, and optionally claiming a subdomain. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects like replacing existing projects, but it adequately describes the primary outcome.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key action and details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., a published app version ID from browse_apps) and does not indicate what the return value represents. Given no output schema, these omissions reduce completeness for an agent selecting the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by confirming the optionality of subdomain but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to fork a published app into a new project. It specifies the components copied (database, functions, site) and the optional subdomain claim, distinguishing it from siblings like 'publish_app' or 'claim_subdomain'.

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 usage for creating a full copy of a published app, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when you only need a subdomain or a partial copy. No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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