fork_blueprint

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

Discloses that node statuses reset to not_started and lineage is recorded via forked_from_blueprint_id. However, with no annotations, it omits permissions, failure behavior, or side effects like overwriting existing plans.

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 the action front-loaded. No redundant information. Slightly more detail could be provided without losing conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter roles. It lacks details about error handling (invalid blueprint_id, non-existent workspace) and return values.

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 67% (blueprint_id missing description). Description adds context about blueprint meaning but does not specify format or uniqueness of blueprint_id. The title parameter is adequately explained.

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 action (fork), the object (plan-scope blueprint), and the result (new plan in target workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like save_as_blueprint and create_plan by specifying the fork behavior.

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?

Implies usage for duplicating a blueprint's structure into a workspace, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., save_as_blueprint or create_plan). No when-not-to-use guidance.

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