Download backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the operation writes to the server-local filesystem and requires superuser privileges. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting an existing file, whether intermediate directories are created, or what happens when the backup key does not exist.

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 tightly worded sentences, zero filler, with the core action and destination front-loaded before the permission constraint. Every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destination, and access control. It could go further by mentioning error conditions or behavior when the file exists, but these are minor for a straightforward download operation.

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%: both 'key' and 'destPath' have descriptive schema text. The description adds only a small clarification that destPath should be a '.zip' location, which the schema also mentions. With full schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate significantly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a backup file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_backup_download_url (which likely returns a URL) and upload_backup. It also specifies the destination ('local path on the machine running this MCP server'), making the scope unambiguous.

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 a clear context: downloading backup files to a local filesystem path, and adds an explicit permission constraint ('Superuser only'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer this over get_backup_download_url or download_file, but the sibling list and tool name make the intended use reasonably clear.

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