backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it changes nothing in NextDNS and only writes a server-side copy, and it scopes out logs. It does not discuss whether repeated calls create duplicate backups, which matters given the idempotent hint.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its scope, then follows with usage routing and return info in a logical order. It is on the longer side and the parenthetical inventory is dense, but every clause carries information.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a full output schema covering returns, and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description needs only to add scope and routing — which it does completely: what is saved, what is excluded, when to use it, what alternative applies otherwise, and where to list backups.

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 100% and both parameters (note, profile) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or usage detail for either parameter, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (save a full copy of a profile), enumerates exactly what is captured (security, privacy, parental control, lists, rewrites, settings) and explicitly excludes logs. It distinguishes itself from restore_backup, undo, and backups by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger (before big changes), an explicit exclusion with an alternative (single changes can already be undone with undo), and names the complementary tools restore_backup and backups. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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