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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence beyond them: current data is overwritten and rows written after the backup are lost, plus the dry-run gate on confirm. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler. The confirm gate, the destruction warning, and the file-name constraint are all front-loaded in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the destructive/mutation profile, dry-run behavior, and input format are covered. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'server' and 'database' parameters, which the agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies 'file' (file name only, not a path) and 'confirm' (must be true or you get a preview), but says nothing about the 'server' or 'database' parameters, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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+resource ('restores the website's database') and names the sibling tool that produces the input ('site_db_backup'), plus where those backups live. An agent can distinguish it from site_restore, site_rebuild, and site_db_backup 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?

Explicit preconditions and alternatives: requires confirm=true, otherwise a preview runs and nothing executes; take a fresh site_db_backup first if current state matters. Both the when-to-use and the when-not (preview) paths are spelled out.

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