manage_backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it: explains the prev/anchor slot scheme, that restore rotates current content into prev so restores are undoable, refuses documents open in Word, validates before atomic replace, and dry_run defaults to true. There is no contradiction with annotations because none were provided.

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?

Organized by action with clear labels and no filler; every sentence adds operational value. The opening establishes the folder scheme and the create_snapshot boundary before detailing each action, making critical information easy to find.

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 multi-action backup tool with no annotations and six undocumented parameters, the description supplies all necessary semantics: valid action values, defaults, source/scope choices, restore behavior, safety checks, and reporting. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description maps action values, source options, scope options, dry_run default, and file_path vs directory usage. Every parameter receives practical meaning beyond its bare name, fully compensating for the absent schema documentation.

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 'Manage' with resource 'automatic backups under hidden .ks4w-backups/' and enumerates three concrete actions (list, restore, purge) with distinct behaviors. Clearly separates itself from create_snapshot by noting snapshots are permanent keepers this tool never touches.

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?

Each action includes explicit when/where context: list for slot files, legacy files, and orphans; restore for overwriting from prev/anchor/legacy paths; purge for legacy/orphans/slots with dry_run semantics. The note about create_snapshot snapshots being permanent keepers provides a when-not boundary.

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