Fork a shared item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: the item is detached into an independent copy, and future edits to the original no longer affect this list's copy. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects, though it omits details like reversibility or required permissions, which are not critical for understanding the core behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and delivers the essential information without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with two integer parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the operation and its primary consequence. It doesn't mention what happens to other lists (implied they remain shared) or return format, but these are not necessary for such a straightforward operation, especially given the schema provides parameter types.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context: 'shared item' maps to itemId, and 'one specific list' maps to listId. This is enough for an agent to infer the parameter roles, though it doesn't explicitly name them in the description, which would have been clearer.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detaches') and clearly identifies the resource (shared item) and the outcome (independent copy for one specific list). It distinguishes from siblings like copy_list by emphasizing detaching the link to the original, which is a unique operation.

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 provides clear context: use this when you want a shared item to become an independent copy for a specific list, with the consequence that future edits to the original won't affect this list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though this is implied by the context.

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