project_backup

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the backup does not change the active project file. This is important for safe usage. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, but for a backup tool, the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 paragraphs: first paragraph delivers the core purpose and usage guidelines succinctly; second paragraph lists the argument. No extraneous info, every sentence is valuable 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 description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the single parameter. Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, it provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 description defines the 'path' parameter as an absolute .rpp path for the backup copy, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well.

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?

Clearly states the action (save a snapshot copy) and resource (to a path). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'project_save_as' by noting it does not change the active file, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: before risky/destructive changes like wiping MIDI, deleting tracks, or clean=True mix passes. Also contrasts with 'project_save_as' to clarify use cases.

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