Save SwOS Backup

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the file is an opaque MikroTik format restorable only on the same model, a server-side file is written owner-only, and the action is audited like a write. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured hints, though it does not cover failure modes or overwrite behavior of an existing backup file.

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 compact sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, format/restore constraint, the factory-default caveat, and the write/audit side effect. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 and a single optional parameter, the description covers what the tool produces, what the artifact can and cannot be used for, and its side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it.

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% for the single routerId parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and the default-router fallback. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (download) and resource (the switch's own configuration backup / backup.swb) and identifies the exact file the web UI produces. It is clearly distinguishable from restore_swos_backup, which the description explicitly names as the counterpart operation.

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 a concrete exclusion ('a switch on factory defaults has nothing to save') and routes the agent to restore_swos_backup / web UI for the reverse operation. It does not state general preconditions (e.g. whether the switch must be reachable or a password set), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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