fork_query

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, which suggests the forking operation may have side effects (e.g., creating a new resource, consuming quota). The description only says 'duplicate,' which implies a non-destructive copy, but the annotation warns of potential destruction. No additional behavioral details are provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient to indicate the primary action. However, it lacks details on side effects, return values, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent considering this tool.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'query_id' with description 'Query ID to fork.' Schema coverage is 100% (1/1 parameters described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action: 'Fork (duplicate) an existing query.' The verb 'fork' is specific to duplicating, and the resource 'query' is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from create_query (new from scratch) or archive_query.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_query or update_query. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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