backup_download_mysql

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with the non-read-only flag by stating that a dump is written to the account root directory. It adds the destination location beyond the annotations, but omits overwrite behavior, permissions needed, and file-naming/size behavior for a write-to-disk operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact structured Args block. Every element earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destination directory is covered. However, for a tool that writes a dump to disk, the description leaves gaps around permissions, overwrite behavior, and how the resulting file is named or located.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does document both params: 'bases' as a list of database names and 'backup_id' as the backup ID with the default meaning 'current copy'. This compensates for the coverage gap adequately, though it adds no detail on name format or how a dump is scoped across multiple bases.

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 states a specific verb (выгрузить/download), resource (MySQL dump from a backup), and destination (account root directory), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like backup_download_file and backup_restore_mysql. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as backup_download_file (files) or backup_restore_mysql (restore rather than dump). The only contextual hint is the parameter note about backup_id defaulting to the current copy, which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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