fork_from_failure

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

Without annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It clearly discloses that new workflows are created, prior step outputs are reused, and exactly one of the from_* parameters must be set. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or effects on the original workflows, but core behavior is transparent and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a succinct usage context, a complete parameter list, and return value explanation. Each sentence earns its place 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It lacks edge-case behaviors like error conditions or prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema and detailed Args make it largely complete.

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 provides a detailed Args section explaining every parameter, including defaults and semantics, such as 'application_version' defaulting to the current version and 'queue_name' enqueueing forked workflows. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Fork multiple failed workflows from a specific point' and elaborates 'Creates new workflows that re-execute from a chosen point, reusing the recorded outputs of all prior steps.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from singular fork_workflow or resume_workflow.

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 states 'Useful for retrying a batch of failed workflows after deploying a fix' and enforces a critical constraint on the from_* parameters. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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