backup_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds destination and timestamping context, but does not explain overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether the source file is modified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action efficiently without unnecessary wording.

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 backup tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic action and destination. It still omits timestamp format, backup naming, overwrite or error behavior, and path constraints that an agent may need.

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 required path parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description only implies that path refers to the file being copied, without clarifying path format, whether directories are allowed, or whether path is source versus destination.

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 operation and resource: a timestamped copy of a file into the backups folder. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like write_file or edit_file, but the backup scope is clear enough to distinguish the tool.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_file, edit_file, or run_command. The backup intent is implied only by the phrase 'into the backups folder'.

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