fork_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether forking is destructive to the original, what side effects occur (e.g., copying secrets), or if there are any rate limits or authorization requirements. This is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It achieves conciseness at the cost of providing minimal useful information, which is acceptable only if the tool is extremely simple and context-independent.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description should at least explain the outcome of forking (e.g., creates a new project) and how it relates to other fork tools. The current description leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of 'name' (likely the new fork's name) or 'projectSlug' (likely the source project). Without any parameter guidance, the agent cannot infer how to correctly populate these fields.

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 'Forks an existing project' uses a verb+resource pattern and is clear in a general sense, but it does not specify what forking entails in this context (e.g., creating a copy, linking to original). Given sibling tools like create_project and sync_fork, the description lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project, sync_fork, or unlink_fork_parent. The description does not mention prerequisites or context like required permissions or typical scenarios.

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