Fork a site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: the source is unchanged, a new artifact is created, and permission is required. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful side-effect disclosure beyond the structured data.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose with examples, return behavior and source invariance, then an explicit alternative. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers the primary outcome (new identifier/address), source invariance, and permission prerequisite. Given the simple three-parameter schema and no output schema, it is fairly complete. Minor omissions like error handling or edge cases are not critical for a fork operation.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters (slug, tenant_id, share_token). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action 'Make an independent copy of a remote artifact' with concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update/edit. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 tools (update/edit) and the condition for using them instead. Also mentions the permission requirement, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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