ledfx_validate_backup

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'without restoring it', implying non-destructive validation. However, it does not specify what validation criteria are used or what the response indicates (e.g., success/failure info).

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It could optionally detail validation criteria or return value, but for a simple validation tool, it's adequate.

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?

Only one parameter 'backup' with 100% schema description coverage ('The backup object to validate'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a backup JSON structure without restoring it. The verb 'validate' and resource 'backup JSON structure' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool ledfx_restore_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?

Implied usage: use before restoring a backup to check validity. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor alternatives like comparing with other validation tools (none exist in siblings).

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