Backup Database

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

The description contradicts the annotations. It says the tool 'saves' backup files to a directory, which is a filesystem side effect, while readOnlyHint is true. It also calls the tool 'idempotent' while idempotentHint is false and the clarifying clause ('creates separate backup files') actually indicates non-idempotent behavior. Despite otherwise useful behavioral notes, the contradiction makes this dimension fail.

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 well organized into short sections: an opening summary, when to use, parameter guidance, behavioral notes, and return value. Every section adds practical information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (pg_dump or Docker), fallback behavior, performance implications, return value, and automatic directory creation. It loses one point because the incorrect idempotence claim and readOnlyHint contradiction could mislead an agent about side effects.

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 already provides 100% coverage for label, database, and confirmed. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by showing the exact filename format with a timestamp, giving a concrete 'pre-migration' example, and clarifying that confirmed is an explicit user confirmation gate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a full SQL dump of the database using pg_dump and saves it to the configured backup directory.' It also clarifies that the backup includes the full schema and data, making it easy to distinguish from the db_* query and schema sibling tools.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete triggers: risky migrations, bulk operations, periodic maintenance, and explicit user requests to back up/export. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but there are no obvious backup sibling alternatives to exclude.

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