ncloud_export_mysql_backup

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true signals safe read behavior, and the description adds the destination (Object Storage) and the prerequisite lookup. However, it does not disclose whether the export is synchronous/asynchronous, whether the bucket must already exist, or what the response contains. This leaves the agent guessing about operational side effects beyond the source DB not being modified.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states purpose, and the second provides the essential prerequisite. No repetition of schema details or annotations. This is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and an annotation that could be misleading for an action that writes to Object Storage. The description does not explain what the tool returns, whether it triggers a long-running job, or if the destination bucket must be pre-created. Given the moderate complexity and missing return-value guidance, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter fields are already well explained. The description adds practical cross-tool guidance by telling the agent to use ncloud_list_mysql_backup_details to obtain the fileName, which helps understand where that value comes from. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Export'), the resource ('Cloud DB for MySQL backup file'), and the destination ('Object Storage'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling export tools (e.g., ncloud_export_mysql_log, ncloud_export_mongodb_backup) by naming the MySQL backup context, and from other MySQL tools by specifying export to Object Storage.

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?

It explicitly points to ncloud_list_mysql_backup_details as the prerequisite for obtaining available file names, which is valuable guidance for using the tool correctly. While it doesn't mention when-not-to-use or alternative export tools, the resource-specific name makes the intended context clear. The absence of exclusions keeps it just short of a 5.

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