glyphdna_fork

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a mutating operation: it creates a new script, copies content bytes, records parent/root lineage, and has specific side effects like adding a registry row and content file. It also notes that receipts are not minted automatically.

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 longer than necessary but is well organized under BEHAVIOR, SIDE EFFECTS, OUTPUT, Follow-up, and Args. Each section adds useful detail, with minimal fluff, though some repetition of 'lineage' and 'script' occurs.

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 provides output shape, error statuses, side effects, and follow-up endpoints, which is strong given there is no output schema. However, the input parameters are ambiguous and auth requirements are not mentioned, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

The description mentions 'member_file' and 'script_id (integer)', but the input schema declares zero properties. This is a significant mismatch: 'member_file' is undefined, and it is unclear whether either argument is required or how member_file should be supplied.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fork a published script on glyphdna.net with recorded lineage.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like glyphdna_verify or glyphdna_lineage.

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 explains the behavior, side effects, output, and follow-up actions well, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as glyphdna_lineage or glyphdna_verify. Usage is implied but not directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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