manage_backups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that restore rotates current content into prev before overwriting, validates the payload, and performs an atomic replace; purge only deletes when dry_run=False; and backups live per-deck under .ks4p-backups/. This makes side effects and safety properties explicit.

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?

The description is dense and information-rich with no filler; every sentence contributes behavior. It is front-loaded with the backup location and names the key state files early. However, the opening sentence is grammatically compressed and the entire definition is a single unbroken paragraph, making it slightly harder to scan than a structured bulleted form would be.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — six parameters, three actions, no enum hints, and no schema descriptions — the definition is remarkably complete. It covers location, state semantics, per-action parameters, validation, atomicity, undo behavior, and deletion safety. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail is not a gap.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It explains action values, scope ('orphans'/'slots'), source ('prev'/'anchor'/'.pptx'), dry_run defaults and semantics, and references file_path and directory for list/restore. All six parameters are meaningfully contextualized beyond the raw 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?

The description states the tool manages automatic backups under .ks4p-backups/ and enumerates three distinct actions — list, restore, and purge — with specific behavior for each. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which operate on presentation content rather than backup state.

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 gives explicit context for when each action is appropriate: list for discovering backup slots/orphans, restore for overwriting from a backup source, and purge for deletion with dry_run defaulting to true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use manage_backups, but the action-oriented guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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