keel_strategy_fork

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds key behavioral context: the `source` argument accepts either a strategy id or share-link id and auto-detects the endpoint. This goes beyond annotations without 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?

The description is compact (two sentences plus two brief exclusions), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description appropriately focuses on input and usage. It addresses the three parameters, distinguishes from relevant siblings, and covers the auto-detection nuance, making it fully informative for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the `source` parameter by explaining the auto-detection behavior, which is not in the schema. Other parameters are adequately described in schema.

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 clearly states 'Fork a strategy into your org' with a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'Do NOT use to compose a new strategy from scratch — call keel_strategy_compose' and 'Do NOT use to create a share link — call keel_share_create'.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use (forking a strategy) and when-not-to-use (composing or creating share links) with specific alternative tool names, giving clear guidance for an AI agent.

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