Create Project Backup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees beyond this: collision-safe naming, byte verification, and no modification or opening of the source project. These are important operational details an agent would not know otherwise.

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 communicates the action, the target resource, the key safety guarantees, and the non-destructive nature. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description covers the essential behavior, the file type, the location of the backup, collision safety, and verification. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, with project_path already documented as an existing .prproj path. The description adds only the contextual detail that the backup is created beside that file, which is helpful but does not add substantial semantic information beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: create a backup of an existing .prproj file. The qualifiers 'collision-safe', 'byte-verified', and 'without opening or modifying the source project' make the tool's purpose precise and distinguish it from save/save-as/export siblings.

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 provides clear context: this is a non-modifying safety backup created beside the original file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the preconditions and non-destructive nature are clear enough for an agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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