fork_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a full copy and optionally claims a subdomain, which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences if the subdomain is taken.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key aspects. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid version_id) or the result (e.g., new project ID), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying subdomain is optional, but this is already evident from the 'required' list. No deeper insights into parameter values or constraints.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Fork a published app into a new project') and specifies what it includes (database, functions, site, optionally a subdomain). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'publish_app' or 'delete_project'.

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 implies usage (creating a copy of a published app) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives like 'import_project_archive' or 'export_project_archive' that might serve similar purposes in different contexts.

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