✓ SAFE: Create consistent SQLite backup via online backup API. Includes committed WAL data. Auto-timestamps if no path specified.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the backup method (online backup API), consistency guarantee, WAL inclusion, and auto-timestamp behavior. However, it does not specify side effects like file overwrite behavior or blocking.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the safety indicator and covers all key aspects: purpose, method, included data, and automatic naming. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema) and 26 siblings, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. It lacks return value details, but for a straightforward backup tool this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains backup_path is optional (auto-timestamped) but does not clarify source_database_name beyond its name, leaving its purpose ambiguous (likely the current database). Partial 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 includes a safety indicator ('✓ SAFE') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vacuum_database or export_csv. Usage context is only implied through the safety marker.

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