kodi_backup_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the snapshot is stored privately and locally, and the Shield device itself is not modified, clarifying what the operation does and does not touch.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the non-destructiveness constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 described, and annotations plus the description cover purpose and safety for a one-parameter tool. The remaining gap is practical: it does not say where the snapshot lands or how it is later retrieved or restored.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema carries no meaning. The description only says it targets 'one Kodi file', leaving unresolved whether the path is device-side, host-side, absolute, or relative — partial but not sufficient compensation.

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 resource ('Save a ... rollback snapshot of one Kodi file') and the scope ('one Kodi file'), which separates it from bulk siblings like kodi_backups and from the mutating kodi_patch_file/kodi_restore_file. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as kodi_backups (listing) or kodi_restore_file (reverting). The 'rollback snapshot' phrasing hints at a backup-before-change workflow but nothing is made explicit.

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