Backup Team Database

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds the environment prerequisite and the 'timestamped' artifact notion, which is consistent with idempotentHint=false. It does not say where backups land, whether they overwrite anything, or how the resulting backup is referenced later.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, prerequisite immediately after. No filler, but the space saved was not spent resolving the opaque parameters.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, three undocumented parameters and no indication of backup location or how backups are enumerated make this only minimally sufficient for invoking the 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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters (name, use_test_db, workspace_id), so the schema adds no meaning to them. The description does not mention any of the three; TEAM_DB_PATH is an environment variable, not a parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 timestamped backup of the team database'), which separates it from list/restore/cleanup style siblings. The 'team database' qualifier distinguishes it from the non-team backup_journal, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Requires TEAM_DB_PATH' gives one concrete prerequisite, implying usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over backup_journal, team_list_backups, or restore_backup, nor what happens on repeated invocation.

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