fork_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the key behavior of 'reusing the recorded outputs of all prior steps' and creating a new workflow. It also notes that queue_name causes enqueuing instead of immediate execution, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 well-structured with a summary, named parameters with inline explanations, and a returns section. Each sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 covers all 7 parameters, explains the return values, and gives usage hints. For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema, this is thorough and complete, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 includes a complete Args section explaining every parameter, including guidance like 'use list_steps to find step IDs' for start_step. Since schema coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions and adds significant meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'fork' with the resource 'workflow' and clearly scopes it 'from a specific step.' It distinguishes from the sibling fork_from_failure by emphasizing arbitrary step selection, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states 'Useful for debugging, testing fixes, or replaying workflows from a specific point,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fork_from_failure, but the context is enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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