backup-manualBackupLibsql

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

Annotations idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true offer some hints, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention whether the backup is immediate, async, or what side effects occur.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, providing no value beyond the endpoint string.

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 role as a manual backup for a specific database type, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information about triggers, results, or dependencies such as existing backup configurations.

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 describes a single required backupId parameter with minLength 1, but the description does not clarify its meaning (e.g., ID of an existing backup, database, or something else). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 is 'POST /backup.manualBackupLibsql', which merely restates the endpoint path and does not articulate the tool's purpose. It fails to explain what a manual backup for Libsql entails or how it differs from siblings like backup-manualBackupPostgres.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as backup-create or other manual backup tools. No context about prerequisites, timing, or scenarios is provided.

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