Extract a crystal fragment or fork a sub-DAG into a new crystal, optionally pruning the source crystal to an anchor.
Extract crystal fragment or fork sub-DAG into a new crystal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prune | No | Whether to prune source crystal to anchor | |
| fork_to | Yes | Destination crystal identifier | |
| crystal_id | Yes | Source crystal identifier | |
| from_anchor | No | Optional source anchor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about permissions, whether the operation mutates the source crystal, what 'prune' destroys, or whether it is reversible — notable gaps for a tool whose own parameter implies data loss on the source anchor.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy, which is good. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a 4-parameter mutation tool, so it is efficient but too thin to earn higher marks.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive-sounding 'prune' parameter, the description should explain mutation effects, permissions, and the fork/extract distinction. It provides none of that, so an agent cannot call this safely on description alone.
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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation beyond that, so it neither helps nor hurts.
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 verb ('Extract ... fork') and a resource ('crystal fragment / sub-DAG ... into a new crystal'), but the domain jargon is dense and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like crystal_melt, crystal_batch, or crystal_hydrate. An agent knows roughly what happens but not exactly which operation this is relative to the rest of the family.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The 'or' between 'extract fragment' and 'fork sub-DAG' hints at two modes but never says which parameter selects which mode, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.