fork_sketch

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 does not say whether the source sketch is left untouched, where the fork is persisted, whether it is registered in the workspace, what happens on ID collision, or what the new random seed actually changes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero repetition or filler. Every word contributes to the stated purpose, and nothing is buried.

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?

This is a mutation tool with eight parameters, nested modification objects, and no annotations or output schema. The description does not explain fork semantics, persistence or workspace behavior, ID collision handling, or the effect of newSeed, so it is under-specified for the tool's complexity even though the schema is fully annotated.

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 all eight parameters, including the nested modifications fields and defaults, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: create a variant of an existing sketch with a new ID and optional modifications. That clearly separates it from create_sketch and update_sketch at a high level, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance: there is no mention of when to fork rather than call create_sketch, update_sketch, merge_sketches, or promote_sketch. The only implied context is that a source sketch must already exist.

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