Backup Database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about where the backup is written, whether an existing backup is overwritten, required permissions, or how long the operation takes. 'Via Drush' is a mechanism hint but not behavioral context.

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?

A single six-word sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. Its brevity is disciplined, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the tool has no annotations and an undocumented parameter, and the description omits prerequisites and behavioral details an agent needs 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?

The single parameter backup_path has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent has no explanation of what it controls (presumably the output location) or the meaning of the null default. The description adds nothing beyond the name.

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 (create), resource (database backup), and mechanism (via Drush), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from other maintenance tools like cache_rebuild or drush_command. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other maintenance or Drush tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., does it need a running site, sufficient disk, specific permissions). The description only says what it does, leaving the agent to infer context.

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