fork_query

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

The description claims non-destructive behavior ('leaving the original unchanged'), but the annotation sets destructiveHint=true, creating a contradiction. The description also does not mention any side effects, permissions, or potential errors beyond creating a copy.

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 with two informative sentences, front-loading the key action and behavior, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the main behavior, usage, and return (id and name), which is adequate for a simple tool with no output schema. It could add error cases or more details about the return structure, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description reinforces the schema with usage context (from list_queries). The parameter meaning is clear, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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) and resource (saved query), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_query and archive_query by specifying that it creates a copy while leaving the original unchanged.

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 explicit guidance: use list_queries to find the query_id, and use this tool when experimenting or adapting without modifying the original. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to.

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