Backup Import

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses an important failure mode (existing workspace name rejected) and a safety constraint (only user-indicated paths), plus the success return shape, but says nothing about whether an import overwrites/merges existing domains, permission requirements, or size/time limits.

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?

Labeled sections (purpose, Use quando, Retorna, Exemplo, Notas) with the core statement front-loaded and no filler. Every line adds either routing, constraint, or example value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage trigger, return shape, a concrete call example, and key constraints, which is strong for a 3-param mutation tool. The return values are also covered by an output schema, so the main remaining gap is the undocumented connection_id parameter.

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 must compensate. It explains file_path (a ZIP produced by backup_export) and workspace (the domain inside the workspace), which meaningfully supplements the bare string types, but connection_id is never mentioned and the workspace/null semantics remain ambiguous.

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 (import a ZIP) and names the counterpart sibling backup_export as the source of the artifact, so the agent immediately understands the inverse relationship. It further scopes the outcome to either a whole workspace or a domain inside a workspace.

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 when-to-use line: restoring a backup or bringing knowledge from another machine. It lacks a formal when-not/alternative clause, but the 'Notes' section adds a hard exclusion (existing workspace name is refused) and a constraint (only user-indicated paths), which covers most of the routing need.

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