Fork a gist

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

Discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: forking an already-forked gist returns the existing fork, and Opengist returns a 422 error when forking your own gist. This complements the idempotentHint annotation with concrete result and error details.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds essential context: scope, idempotent duplicate behavior, failure case, and an alternative workflow. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the main operation, edge cases, and alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for gistId, including its format, source, and the clarification that it is not a title. The description adds the conceptual point that the gist must belong to someone else, but it does not need to carry further parameter detail given the strong schema.

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?

States a specific action ('fork somebody else's gist into your own account'), the target resource (gist), and an ownership restriction that distinguishes it clearly from related sibling tools. It goes beyond the title by adding scope and behavior.

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 explains the duplicate-fork behavior and the failure case for forking one's own gist. It names an alternative workflow for copying your own gist via get_gist then create_gist, satisfying the when-to-use vs alternatives requirement.

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