fork_repository

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation creates a new project, requires fork permission, and returns either the forked project or a namespace/permission error. This gives the agent important information about side effects, authorization requirements, and error behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 waste: the action is front-loaded, the alternative tools are named in the second sentence, and the third provides essential behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core need: what the tool does, when to use it, what side effects occur, what permission is required, and what return/error behavior to expect. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented: namespace is 'Namespace to fork to (full path)' and project_id is 'Project ID or complete URL-encoded path to project.' The description adds only marginal context like 'permitted namespace' and 'current user's namespace,' but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fork a project to your account or specified namespace,' which clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that search_repositories and get_project are for inspecting without copying, so an agent can tell this tool apart immediately.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to create a copy of an existing project) and names alternatives for when not to use it: use search_repositories or get_project to inspect projects without copying them. This gives clear routing guidance that leaves nothing to inference.

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