cursor_history_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses a significant limitation: Store databases, Agent transcripts and ACP stores are not included. It also says the backup is restorable, which clarifies the intended downstream use, though it does not detail side effects or system interactions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about excluded data types is useful but the phrasing 'Store databases' is slightly awkward; still, every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that it does not mention what the restore workflow expects, but that is likely covered by the cursor_history_restore sibling.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both force and outputPath already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 verb (back up), resource (Composer chat history), and output type (restorable ZIP archive). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by operation and format, though it never explicitly names an alternative such as cursor_history_export or cursor_history_restore.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it: when the agent needs a restorable archive of Composer chat history. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over export, migrate, or year_pack, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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