Backup Project Db

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it is a sqlite database file and writes to a target destination, but does not disclose details like overwrite behavior, file naming, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but some additional behavioral context is still missing.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy and is well-structured.

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 backup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema and annotations sufficiently cover what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could mention recovery options (restore_project_db) but that is not essential.

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%, so the schema fully documents both 'project' and 'outputPath'. The description's phrase 'target destination' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's explicit parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Backup' with the resource 'project's sqlite database file' and clarifies the action destination ('target destination'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like restore_project_db and other graph/export tools.

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 implies usage for creating a database backup but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The context (backup vs restore) is understood, but there is no explicit guidance.

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