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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the state-based failure modes, the balance prerequisite, and the asynchronous 'pending' result that resolves in listBackups. It also discloses a display convention (identify backups by time and reason, never expose backupId), which is genuinely non-obvious operational 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then failure conditions, then return semantics, then the display convention. Every sentence supplies information an agent cannot get from structured fields; nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema and only a thin annotation set, the description carries the burden and does so: it explains the asynchronous return value, how to confirm completion, and the failure envelope. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and report results is missing.

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 reported as 0% and the description says nothing about the sole 'path/serverId' parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, this is a single nested parameter whose serverId field carries its own inline description ('the id field from listServers'), so the gap is small and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Takes a manual backup of the server's current world') and immediately notes the downstream purpose (restore or export). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like listBackups, restoreBackup, or startBackupExport without opening a schema.

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 concrete preconditions for failure (server starting/stopping/restoring, pre-first-boot, low balance) and points to listBackups as the way to follow progress, which is clear invocation context. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing statement against alternatives such as automatic backups, but the manual framing plus the failure conditions make usage unambiguous.

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