export_backup

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: explains the rationale (irreversibility of bulk writes), reassures on cost ('a few seconds and one file'), and clarifies recoverability ('can be re-imported'). The annotations already cover safety signals. Minor gap: doesn't mention disk space or overwrite behavior, though the schema covers the latter.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then rationale. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 backup tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, timing, cost, and recovery value. It doesn't explain what the export returns (file path?), but that's not critical for an agent invoking it. Complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself ('gramps' as lossless safety dump, dest_path behavior). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Write a full-tree export to disk'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like query_objects or get_object. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but its purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('Take one before any bulk write'), which is a concrete usage condition. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is well-defined for a backup tool.

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