fork_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that a full copy including database, functions, site is created and optionally claims a subdomain. However, it does not mention permissions required, potential impact on original app, or any limits. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value: the main action and the scope of the copy are clearly stated.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention the return value (e.g., new project ID). While it covers the core copying behavior, it omits potential time delays or side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, it is partly complete but could be improved.

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%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: for 'version_id' it notes 'from browse_apps', and for 'subdomain' it clarifies 'Optional subdomain to claim'. This adds useful meaning, though 'name' receives no extra detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fork' and clearly identifies the resource 'published app into a new project'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'publish_app' and 'init' by specifying that it creates a full copy including database, functions, site.

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 such as 'init' or 'publish_app'. There are no exclusions or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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