backup_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it spans multiple projects and excludes credentials, and it imposes a concurrency constraint. It does not say where the backup is written or its format, but the additions go meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 sentence packed with three useful facts, front-loaded on the verb and resource. The semicolon-joined clauses make it slightly dense but no clause is filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers scope (whole library and originals), preconditions, content breadth (multiple projects), and an important exclusion (credentials). The main omission is the destination/location of the backup, which an agent might need.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce any parameters, and none exist.

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 – backing up the entire local literature library plus original files – and immediately scopes it ('entire local library', not a single project or record). This clearly separates it from siblings like export_research, preview_deletion, and restore_library.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('other connections must be closed'), which is actionable usage context. However, it does not name when to choose this over export_research or restore_library, so alternatives are left implicit.

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