Manage database backups

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description lists destructive actions like 'delete' and 'delete_execution', which directly contradicts the annotation. This is a serious inconsistency (annotation contradiction). The description also adds useful context about available actions and parameters, but the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rubric.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise enumeration of actions and key parameters. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler. The structure makes it easy to scan quickly.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 6 actions, and no output schema, making it fairly complex. The description provides an overview of actions and key fields but does not specify which parameters are required per action, what each action returns, or error behavior. It is not fully complete, but it gives a sufficient starting point for an agent to explore further.

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?

With only 45% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that frequency accepts a cron expression and listing optional fields (enabled, save_s3, s3_storage_uuid, databases_to_backup, dump_all, retention via extra). It does not elaborate on the meaning of each field, but it provides a useful summary that goes beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Manage scheduled backups for a database.' It then enumerates the specific actions (list, create, update, delete, list_executions, delete_execution), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like scheduledTasks. The verb 'Manage' plus the resource 'scheduled backups' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description indicates the tool is for handling database backup schedules, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., 'use scheduledTasks for non-backup tasks') or state when not to use it. The guidance is contextually clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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