fork_create

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, providing minimal behavioral detail. The description adds meaningful behavior: it 'Snapshots selected environment variables so env_check can later spot drift', discloses that the fork is 'recorded in the SOIL store' (persistence), and explains fork_id auto-generation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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, three sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently covers the core concept, a behavioral side effect, ID handling, and lifecycle pointers. No redundant filler; it earns its place.

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?

Given the 5-parameter schema, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the core concept, snapshot behavior, ID generation, and lifecycle. However, it leaves gaps for parameter meanings (app_id, topic, etc.) and does not mention what the tool returns. For a creation tool, the lifecycle context is helpful but the parameter semantics gap reduces completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Only fork_id is explained ('pins an explicit ID; omit it to auto-generate'). The other parameters (app_id, title, created_by, topic) receive no semantic explanation in the description, leaving the agent to guess their meanings from the schema titles alone.

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 starts with 'Open a fork' and clarifies it as 'a named, bounded unit of work (feature branch + PR tracking)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fork_log, fork_merge, and fork_delete by positioning itself as the creation step. The lifecycle pointers further reinforce that this tool creates forks, not logs, merges, or deletes them.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: to open/start a new fork. It explicitly routes to related tools for other stages: 'Log changes with fork_log; close with fork_merge or fork_delete.' It also references env_check for later drift detection, showing a usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fork_join, which seems to be the counterpart for joining an existing fork.

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