project_backup_encrypted

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, indicating mutation and potential side effects. The description adds algorithm info (AES-256-GCM) and passphrase source, but does not disclose behavior on conflict, overwrite, or state changes. With annotations present, the additional context is moderate.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with key action and encryption details. No redundancy or fluff.

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 3-param tool with security implications, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., env variable must exist, project must be accessible), return value description (despite output schema existing), and error conditions. Incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It clarifies 'passphraseEnv' as a named environment variable but does not explain 'projectId' or 'destination'. Partial value added.

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 action: create an encrypted project backup using AES-256-GCM with a passphrase from an environment variable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'project_backup' (presumably unencrypted) and 'project_restore_encrypted'.

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 usage for encrypted backups but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_backup' or mention prerequisites (e.g., project existence, env variable set). No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.

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