shadowgraph_backup

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds concrete behavioral details: overwrites existing files without warning, creates parent directories, and commits a revision. These are meaningful side effects beyond what annotations alone convey. It could mention permissions or failure cases, but the added context is strong.

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 compact sentences front-load the action, then add usage context, an alternative, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 low complexity—one required parameter, full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and an output schema—the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. It adds usage triggers, sibling differentiation, and key side effects. An agent can act on this definition confidently without further research.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single destination parameter at 100% coverage, including overwrite behavior, parent directory creation, and extension guidance. The description restates some of this but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Write a consistent snapshot of the whole store to a filesystem path on the server.' It clearly differentiates from shadowgraph_redact by noting that the alternative shares data without writing a file. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Take one before shadowgraph_purge or shadowgraph_restore.' It also identifies a relevant alternative, shadowgraph_redact, and explains the key difference. This gives direct routing guidance with no inference required.

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