htb_hosts_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine lifecycle trait — the snapshot is never auto-pruned — but says nothing about where the backup is written, whether repeat calls create duplicates, or whether permission errors are possible for a write operation on /etc/hosts.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the non-pruned guarantee appended as a parenthetical. 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 one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits the return value (an identifier or filename an agent would need to later call htb_hosts_restore or htb_hosts_list_backups) and where the snapshot lives. Those are the remaining gaps an agent must discover empirically.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'label' parameter is described as an optional label for the backup filename, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about how the label affects filename collisions or ordering, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('snapshot of /etc/hosts'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like htb_hosts_restore, htb_hosts_list_backups and htb_hosts_clean. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'explicit snapshot' implies a deliberate manual backup versus any automatic copy.

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 phrase 'explicit snapshot' and '(never auto-pruned)' imply the tool is for intentional, permanent backups before risky changes, but no when-to-use/when-not statement or alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is the pre-change safety step from the presence of htb_hosts_restore and htb_hosts_clean.

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