doc_fork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic input modes (doc_id or hash) and that the hash is immutable, but it does not disclose whether this creates a draft, whether the forked document is linked to the original, how visibility works, or what side effects occur. It also doesn't clarify behavior when both doc_id and hash are provided or neither.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loads the core idea. It earns its place but omits necessary detail; still, conciseness itself is handled well.

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 5 optional-looking parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described in prose, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine which parameters are mutually exclusive, what the new document's default state is, or what the output schema contains. Sibling tools like doc_create and doc_update suggest related but distinct workflows, and this description does not clarify how fork differs.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters with no descriptions. The description only mentions doc_id and hash, and vaguely 'a partir de' implying one or the other. It does not explain title, agent_id, or visibility semantics, and it does not specify precedence between doc_id and hash or required combinations. The description falls well short of compensating for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Cria um documento novo') and a resource (a new document), and it names both input sources (doc_id or hash imutável). This is clear enough to distinguish it from other doc_ siblings like doc_get or doc_create, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with doc_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 implies a use case: forking an existing document by doc_id or hash. It does not explicitly state when to use fork vs create, nor does it mention that no parameters are required. With 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, an agent gets limited guidance on choosing this over doc_create or doc_copy alternatives.

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