Create Backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Hot backup' usefully implies an online backup without stopping the server, but it omits what gets written where, disk-space or permission implications, whether the operation is blocking or long-running, and what the agent can do with the result.

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 verb and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though the budget freed by its brevity is not spent on any routing or constraint detail.

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 mutation that creates disk artifacts, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: the agent does not know the backup's location, naming, whether the server must be running, or expected return. A single simple parameter keeps the gap from being fatal, but the description does not fill it.

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% for the single server_name parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description restates 'the specified Minecraft server' without adding format, naming rules, or validation info beyond the schema. 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 (create) and resource (backup) with scope (world and configuration of a specified server). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_backups or explains the relationship between creating and listing backups.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the server must be running or stopped), and no reference to alternatives such as list_backups to verify an existing backup first. The agent must infer all usage context.

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