backup_asset

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: the timestamped destination means repeated calls accumulate rather than overwrite, and the call-before-destructive-ops guidance explains the intended workflow. It does not explain why the write is flagged destructive or what happens if the backup path already exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the trigger condition and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place 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 only two parameters, annotations present, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece by stating the return object ({ source, backup_path }). Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is absent.

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% and both parameters (path, asset_path alias) are already fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The sentence "Accepts a package path or a full object path" reinforces the accepted formats but adds no syntax the schema does not already carry.

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 (duplicate/back up), resource (asset), and destination (a timestamped /Game/MCP_Backups/ folder), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It is clearly distinct from siblings like delete_asset or move_asset that the description warns about.

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?

"Call this before destructive operations (delete, reparent, overwrite)" gives an explicit trigger condition that no sibling provides. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative (duplicate_asset) or stating when a backup is unnecessary, so it is not 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.