fork_project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it copies code and schema but no data, and creates a personal project. However, it does not mention any side effects or limits (e.g., fork count, public requirement beyond 'public project').

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 plus a usage tip, all relevant and front-loaded. No wasted words, but marginally more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers the key points: what is copied, what is not, and the recommended use case. It could mention if the fork retains visibility settings or that only public projects can be forked, but overall complete for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'fork' and resource 'public project', and distinguishes it by specifying what is copied (code and schema) and what is not (data). It also clarifies the result: a personal project.

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 explicitly says 'This is the recommended way to start from an existing app', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_project.

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