LightCMS

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: confirms idempotency with 'If the page is already in this fork, returns the existing fork copy', mentions output 'Returns the fork page ID', and notes admin requirements for the merge step. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in first sentence. Efficiently structured with bullet points for parameter options and numbered list for workflow. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, input options, output/workflow, and idempotency edge case. No waste.

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?

No output schema exists, but description documents return value (fork page ID) and complete lifecycle workflow including verification step. Covers edge case (already forked) and authorization note. Adequate for a complex CMS fork operation with 3 input parameters.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds selection guidance distinguishing path ('preferred when you know the URL') from content_id, and documents their mutual exclusivity via 'Provide either'. Adds semantic value beyond raw schema descriptions.

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 action 'Copy a live page into a fork workspace' plus clear benefit 'edit without affecting the public site'. Distinguishes from siblings like create_content (creates new) vs. forking existing, and explicitly references the workflow endpoint 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 4-step workflow (fork_page→update_content→get_content→merge_fork) with tool names. Explains parameter selection logic ('preferred when you know the URL'). Notes authorization constraint 'admin only' for merge step. Handles idempotency case.

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