encrypt_backup

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

The description mentions the passphrase is never stored and uses Python stdlib, which adds transparency. However, it does not clarify whether the original backup file is deleted or if any other side effects occur; the return value mentions 'whether original was removed' but the action is not described. Without annotations, this is a gap.

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, with a clear structure: purpose, implementation note, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main aspects: file input, encryption method, and return value. It explains enough for an agent to invoke correctly. However, it lacks detail on error handling and file overwriting behavior, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds specific meanings: backup_path is 'Full path to the .sqlite backup file' and passphrase is 'Encryption passphrase.' This goes beyond the schema's titles and provides context that the file should be a .sqlite file, which is helpful.

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 it encrypts a backup file using AES-256-GCM, specifies the output filename pattern, and tells the agent it produces an encrypted version. The verb 'encrypt' and resource 'backup file' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'decrypt_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 includes a note advising that this is a simple implementation and for production-grade encryption a proper secrets manager should be used. This provides clear guidance on limitations and when to consider alternatives, though it could explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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