flat_fork_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait -- that the original is preserved when editing the copy -- but says nothing about where the duplicate is placed, what name or id it receives, whether it is a full deep copy including revisions, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by an immediately useful rationale. No filler, though it is sparse given the tool's complexity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage on two parameters, the description would need to do much heavier lifting. It does not explain the result of the fork, the target collection semantics, or error/permission conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates new resources.

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 0% and both parameters (score_id, collection) are undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent learns nothing about which score is duplicated or what the optional collection argument controls.

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 a specific verb ("Duplica") with a specific resource ("partitura"), which clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like flat_list_scores or flat_get_musicxml. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, flat_create_score, but the duplicate-vs-create distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 parenthetical "útil para editar uma cópia e preservar a original" supplies a genuine usage scenario, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative flat_create_score, and no preconditions such as permissions or access to the source score.

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