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

Annotations only cover the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real behavioral disclosure beyond that: a disk-space refusal threshold, mysqldump as the dump mechanism, and an automatic /etc snapshot before changes capped at once per 30 minutes.

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?

Three tight sentences: what gets saved, the safety refusal, then the automatic /etc behavior. Nothing is redundant and the operational constraint is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 4-param, no-output-schema mutation tool the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, safety limits, and side effects. It omits what the call returns (e.g., an identifier needed later by rollback) and whether the operation is synchronous, which is a minor but real gap.

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 75%, and the description covers the gap for 'databases' by explaining they are MySQL/MariaDB dumps taken with mysqldump, which the empty schema description omits. It adds meaning for 'paths' by framing them as folders saved for rollback, though it adds nothing for 'label' or 'server' beyond the schema text.

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 precise verb and resource: save folders and optionally MySQL/MariaDB databases on a server, explicitly tied to restoration via rollback. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_snapshots, db_dump, and rollback without opening any schema.

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 names the pairing partner ('restored with rollback'), which tells the agent when the snapshot is consumed, and gives a hard precondition (refuses past half of free disk). It does not explicitly say 'use before applying risky changes' or contrast against db_dump/transfer for database-only needs, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternatives guidance.

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