Fork Library Entry

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

Annotations declare it non-read-only (mutation) but non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context on top: the fork is a 'full copy' that behaves like any other strategy, and critically it warns that the library's published metrics belong to the verified run, not the fork — routing the agent to keel_backtest_run for the fork's own evidence. This matches and enriches the annotations with no contradiction.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the default suggestion, the full-copy/metrics caveat, and the sibling routing. It's somewhat long but not bloated, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the exclusions.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage. It covers the sibling distinction, the metrics caveat, the default entry, and the full-copy semantics. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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% — name, slug, and variant_id all carry descriptions. The description adds marginal value by suggesting ma-crossover-crypto as a concrete default slug value and confirming slug provenance from keel_library_list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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?

States a specific verb ('fork') + resource ('verified Keel Library entry') + outcome ('normal, editable strategy in caller's org'). It clearly differentiates from the primary sibling (keel_strategy_fork) by specifying it targets YOUR strategies/share links, while this targets library entries. The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the selection condition: 'To fork one of YOUR strategies or a share link, use keel_strategy_fork (it takes ids, not slugs).' It also frames the tool as 'the supported way to start from something proven instead of composing from scratch' and calls out ma-crossover-crypto as the default for first strategies. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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