backup_site

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

Annotations already provide read-only, destructive, and idempotency hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the backup is downloaded to a configured private folder, is verified, and does not alter the server. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details about overwrite behavior or verification semantics.

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 a single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded and a semicolon clause adding a valuable safety constraint. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, destination, and the key safety trait of not changing the server. Not explaining the verification process or prerequisites is a minor gap but not critical given the tool's low complexity.

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 property coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'domain' parameter, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond what the field name itself implies. The agent must rely on the tool name and context to infer that 'domain' identifies which site to back up.

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 states a specific verb ('Baixa' / downloads), a specific resource ('backup verificado'), and a destination ('pasta privada configurada'), while the clause 'não altera o servidor' clarifies that this is a non-mutating retrieval tool. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_site and preview_deploy, which imply server changes.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when a verified backup is needed without server modification, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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