backup_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Consistent snapshot' hints at transaction-level integrity, but the description does not state whether the operation is safe to run concurrently, whether it overwrites existing backups, what filesystem or permission requirements exist, or if it has performance side effects. A 'write' operation is disclosed, but many behavioral aspects remain opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the action, the object, and the destination efficiently, earning its place without 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely adequate. It conveys the purpose and destination without needing to explain return values. However, it omits operational caveats like whether the database must be online or whether existing backups are preserved, which would make the context more complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The schema already covers everything needed, and the description adds no syntactic detail because none is required. Baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('consistent snapshot of the database to the backups directory'), clearly stating the action and destination. It distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which perform backup or snapshot operations.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to invoke this tool or conditions that should trigger a backup, such as before destructive operations or as a periodic safety measure. The absence of any alternative backup-related sibling makes the intended use somewhat implied, but the description does not provide guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or sequencing.

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