Backup project file

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

Given no annotations, the description provides good transparency by stating the backup is timestamped, saved next to the original, and is non-destructive. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without surprises.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, output, and safety, though it could mention potential errors (e.g., file not found) or behavior if the backup file already exists.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema, and the tool description adds value by explaining the backup location and naming, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states the action (backup), the resource (.prproj file), and the output naming convention (timestamped .bak-<timestamp>). It also declares the tool as safe and non-destructive, which further clarifies its purpose and distinguishes it from potentially destructive sibling tools like close_project or save_project_as.

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 implies usage (backup before making changes) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_project or close_project. No conditions for use or when not to use are stated.

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