Creates a read-only, vendor-compatible .NWSchedulerBackup file of shared New World Scheduler data, with optional pre-backup sync, so you can store or share a safe backup.
Write a read-only, vendor-compatible .NWSchedulerBackup of the shared data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sync_first | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format and that the resulting file is read-only, but says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, what 'sync_first' triggers, or what permissions/authentication the write requires.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the compressed phrasing ('write a read-only ... backup') is slightly ambiguous about whether the tool or the artifact is read-only, and brevity here comes at the cost of needed detail.
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, but for a two-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits critical information about the sync side effect and overwrite semantics.
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 must explain both parameters and does not. 'Write ... backup' loosely implies output_path, but the default-true sync_first behavior — a meaningful side effect — is completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 artifact: write a vendor-compatible .NWSchedulerBackup of the shared data. An agent can tell this creates a backup file, distinct from restore or export siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with nws_backup_inspect or nws_export.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus nws_export, nws_backup_inspect, or nws_sync, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the backup workflow entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.