fork_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden it discloses a key side effect: 'Snapshots selected environment variables so env_check can later spot drift.' It also explains fork_id auto-generation behavior and storage in the SOIL store. It omits permissions and reversibility, but the disclosed side effects are meaningful and beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence adds distinct value: definition, env snapshot behavior, fork_id behavior, and related tool guidance. 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview and workflow context but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and return behavior. It does place the tool among siblings but lacks explicit parameter details and failure conditions.

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 but covers only fork_id ('omit it to auto-generate'). The other four parameters (title, topic, app_id, created_by) receive no explanation, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 opens with 'Open a fork — a named, bounded unit of work (feature branch + PR tracking) recorded in the SOIL store,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Log changes with fork_log; close with fork_merge or fork_delete.'

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?

It provides usage context by explaining the env-var snapshot for later drift detection with env_check. It explicitly names alternatives for logging and closing forks, which gives implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus those. However, it does not enumerate explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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