Backup físico do banco (cópia do .h2.db)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: the DB is locked while PJe-Calc runs, the copy must happen with the app stopped for consistency, and pjecalc_parar is the required prerequisite. This is exactly the kind of operational constraint annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the consistency caveat, then the locking rationale and the remediation step. The rhetorical question is slightly unusual but tight, and every sentence contributes.

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 file-copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisite (app stopped) and the tool's mechanism. It could note what confirmation/result the caller receives, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'arquivo' already documents its default pattern, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource precisely: 'Copia o arquivo .dados/pjecalc.h2.db byte a byte', which makes the physical-file-copy nature unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from the SQL-dump sibling db_backup_sql. It does not, however, name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 a clear precondition and when-to-use rule: only run with the app stopped, and it names pjecalc_parar as the required prior step. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with db_backup_sql, so the choice between physical and SQL backup is left to the agent.

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