LightCMS

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive; description adds valuable behavioral context including isolation guarantees ('without affecting the public site'), return value disclosure ('Returns the fork ID needed for subsequent fork operations'), and workflow sequencing. Could mention auth requirements or side effects for a 5.

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?

Four distinct segments: one-line summary, concept explanation, numbered workflow (4 steps), and return value note. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Clear front-loading with the essential action stated immediately.

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?

Excellent completeness given no output schema exists: description explicitly states the return value (fork ID). Covers the full lifecycle context (creation through merge), explains relationship to live site, and provides sufficient detail for a workspace creation tool with 100% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'name' and 'description' parameters fully documented in schema). Description references 'named fork workspace' which aligns with the name parameter, but adds no syntax, format, or example details beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

Opens with specific verb+resource: 'Create a new named fork workspace for staging content changes.' Explains what a fork is (isolated workspace) and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning it as step 1 in a 4-step workflow distinct from fork_page, update_content, and merge_fork.

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?

Provides explicit typical workflow with numbered steps showing exactly when to use this tool (step 1: create workspace) versus alternatives (step 2: fork_page, step 3: update_content, step 4: merge_fork). Also clarifies admin restriction applies to merge step, helping users understand this tool's prerequisites.

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