ncloud_export_mysql_backup

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description describes an export operation that writes to Object Storage, which is a clear contradiction. The description does not clarify this inconsistency or disclose other behavioral aspects like idempotency, rate limits, or permission requirements. This contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 sentence that conveys the core action and a helpful suggestion for prerequisite data. It is concise without any unnecessary wording or fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity of an export operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response looks like, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or the expected behavior if the bucket does not exist. The contradiction with annotations further harms completeness.

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%, with each parameter having a clear definition in the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format constraints or defaults. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 that the tool exports a Cloud DB for MySQL backup file to Object Storage, which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions using ncloud_list_mysql_backup_details to get file names, helping distinguish it from other export tools like ncloud_export_mysql_log. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

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 advises using ncloud_list_mysql_backup_details to obtain available file names, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, such as other export methods or constraints like backup file format. The guidance is implied but lacks comprehensive usage boundaries.

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