create_backup

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this creates panel state and requires WISP_ALLOW_BACKUPS. That permission and side-effect detail is useful for an agent, though it does not explain what the backup contains or whether creation is synchronous.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by when-to-use guidance. Every phrase contributes useful information without repetition.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety hints, the description supplies the key missing context: purpose, timing, and the WISP_ALLOW_BACKUPS prerequisite. It does not cover return behavior, backup scope, or expected duration, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the name format, server_id fallback behavior, or parameter interactions 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a named server backup.' It also clarifies the effect as creating a 'new recovery point,' which distinguishes it from siblings such as list_backups, deploy_backup, delete_backup, and lock_backup.

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 clear usage context: use before risky changes or when a new recovery point is required. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it to deploy_backup or other backup-related siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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