backup_analysis

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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint, so the description does real work: it discloses that a timestamped JSON file is written, what the file contains (sheets, visuals, calculated fields, parameters, filters), and the exact destination path. It does not say whether repeated calls accumulate new files or overwrite, which is the one behavior that would matter most given the timestamped naming.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then contents, then the companion tool and destination. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 explained, and the description covers purpose, content, destination, and restore pairing. The remaining gap is the overwrite/timestamp-accumulation question, which is not addressed anywhere in the structured data.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines analysis_id fully. The description adds no format, identifier-source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save a full backup of a QuickSight analysis definition to disk') and enumerates what the backup contains. It is clear about scope, though it never differentiates itself from the similarly-named sibling snapshot_analysis (or backup_dataset), leaving the agent to guess which backup-style tool applies.

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?

It explicitly pairs the tool with its counterpart ('Use restore_analysis to restore from a backup'), which tells the agent the intended workflow. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use it versus snapshot_analysis, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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