manage_backups

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

The description goes far beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation. It discloses that restore overwrites file_path, rotates current content into prev first to make restore undoable, validates the payload before atomic replacement, and that purge deletes only when dry_run=False. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 dense and information-rich with no fluff, and it front-loads the backup-location concept before diving into actions. The single-paragraph semicolon-heavy structure is a little harder to parse than a bulleted breakdown, but every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, destructive restore/purge modes), the description covers the critical details: undoability, validation, atomic replacement, dry-run defaults, and scoping. An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's job. It still leaves a few gaps around parameter interactions and edge cases, but it is fundamentally complete for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains action values ('list', 'restore', 'purge'), source options ('prev', 'anchor', '.pptx path'), scope values ('orphans', 'slots'), and dry_run's default behavior. Some combinations remain implicit, such as how file_path and directory interact for list, but the essential parameter semantics are covered.

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 clearly identifies the tool's domain—managing automatic backups in .ks4p-backups/—and enumerates three concrete actions (list, restore, purge) with their effects. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling create_snapshot, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context for each action: list for slots/orphans, restore for overwriting from a source, and purge for cleanup with dry-run semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the selection guidance implied rather than explicit.

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