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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: async execution, the job_id + file path return, the fixed output directory /var/lib/askyourstack/dumps, credential handling ('they never reach the chat'), and a transfer hint. It is consistent with the declared non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world profile, but does not say what happens on a repeat run (the non-idempotent case) or how failures surface.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and result, and every sentence carries information (return values, storage path, follow-up tool). It is slightly run-on with several clauses chained by semicolons, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so (job_id and file path). It covers destination and transfer, but leaves failure modes and retrieval of the finished file unaddressed for an async mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including their optionality and format examples. The description's only marginal addition is implying the site argument ties back to list_sites; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (dump) and resource (a site's database), plus the output artifact (.sql.gz file on its server), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like db_query, db_restore, and list_dumps. The parenthetical '(any kind list_sites shows)' further scopes what databases are eligible.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it runs in the background and the agent should 'follow it with job_output', which is actionable workflow guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with db_query/db_restore or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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