backup_db

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool is non-destructive (safe while live), details the return JSON fields (backup_path, size_kb, checksum, elapsed_ms), and mentions the API used. This gives good behavioral insight.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a safety note, a bulleted argument list, and a return format summary. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 backup tool with 3 optional parameters and a defined output format, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works (live-safe), parameter details, and return structure. No gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining each parameter: destination with default path, label for filename suffix, extra_destination for secondary copy. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool creates a timestamped backup of the Metis SQLite database, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore_db, list_backups, verify_backup.

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 mentions the tool uses SQLite's Online Backup API and is safe to run while the database is live, providing useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like restore_db or encrypt_backup.

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