backup_world

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete destination (backups/worlds under the data dir's prismlauncher-mcp folder) and that the backup path is returned. It omits other traits an agent needs: whether an existing backup is overwritten, whether the instance must be stopped, and any failure modes such as a missing world folder.

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?

A single sentence with the action and destination front-loaded and no filler. The nested parenthetical about the data dir is a bit dense but still earns its place by locating the output.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it explains the destination and return value but leaves both parameters entirely undefined in any structured or prose field.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning and it only vaguely gestures at 'world folder'. It says nothing about what 'instance' identifies (instance name vs. id) or whether 'world' is a folder name versus a path.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Zip) on a specific resource (a world folder) and names the destination directory, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not contrast itself with the nearby copy_world sibling, which is the closest source of confusion.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'backup' — an agent can infer it is for archiving a world, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about prerequisites (e.g. must the server be stopped?), and no mention of copy_world as the non-archiving alternative.

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