db_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the dump is written to .oz/backups, is portable ('restores anywhere'), and crucially is verified before being reported — 'an unverified backup is a file, not a backup.' It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the core safety behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the timing, and the verification/portability principle. The core command is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 optional params and no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it writes, when to use it, and how success is determined. It could be more explicit about return values or error behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents cwd and label. The description adds contextual color about when backups are appropriate, but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dump the project's tracker to .oz/backups and verify it.' This clearly identifies the operation, its target, and the verification step, and the action is distinct from reading or listing backups (db_backups) or restoring them (db_restore).

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Take one before any bulk change — a refine pass, a restore, a migration.' It also contrasts with copying the data directory, but it does not name or explicitly exclude sibling tools such as db_restore or db_backups, so the alternatives guidance is only partial.

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