backup_plan

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

The description reveals it saves a timestamped copy for later restore, and clarifies the backup destination directory. It doesn't describe potential side effects, what happens to existing backups, or disk behavior, but the primary behavior (copying a file to a backup dir) is non-destructive and reasonably transparent.

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, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and location, then adds discovery guidance for the parameter and a brief rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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 file-copy backup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what, where, why, and how to find the required parameter. It's missing potential edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens if the destination dir doesn't exist), but for a low-complexity tool the description is largely sufficient.

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%, so both parameters (plan_name and source_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining where plan_name comes from (the plan mode system prompt) and when source_path is needed (non-default directory), which slightly exceeds baseline but schema carries most of the burden.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Back up your current Claude Code plan file to .wisdom/plan-backups/'. It clearly explains what gets backed up (the plan file), where it goes, and why (so you can restore later). It differentiates from the sibling restore_archive_backup and backup-related tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use it (when backing up the plan file before modifications) and tells the user how to find the plan name ('in your plan mode system prompt'). It implies usage context (backup before plan changes) but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when NOT to use it, though siblings are mostly unrelated.

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