ecp_mssql_backup_to_storage_bd

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

The description simply states the operation without disclosing side effects or prerequisites. A backup tool may lock the database, overwrite existing backups, or require the target database to exist, none of which are mentioned. With no annotations to cover safety or idempotency, the description leaves the agent to guess at the operation's behavior.

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 a single, grammatically simple sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. However, it omits any secondary structure like prerequisites or notes, which are unnecessary for such a short description, so it is appropriately concise for its simplicity. It earns a 3 because while concise, it leaves out contextual details that would make it more useful.

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?

This is a backup operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain destination behavior, overwrite semantics, and what the resulting backup looks like (e.g., filename, location). The description provides none of these. It also doesn't distinguish the 'storage.bd' destination from other storage options or clarify whether a backup name is auto-generated. For a destructive-adjacent operation (backups can overwrite), this is insufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter (db_name) with zero schema documentation. The description implies the parameter identifies which database to back up, but it does not confirm the parameter name or clarify whether it must be an existing database name only (not a path or identifier). For a backup operation, the parameter semantics are straightforward from the description, but the description doesn't add any detail the schema lacks (e.g., naming constraints). Coverage is 0%, so the description must carry more weight, and it mostly does, but it remains thin.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Back up a MSSQL database' to a clear destination ('the account's storage.bd tenant'). This distinguishes it from other MSSQL tools (create, truncate, browse, restore) and the destination is explicit. It loses a point for not clarifying what 'storage.bd' is or what the backup artifact will be used for, but the core action 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 is given on when this tool should be used versus alternatives like ecp_mssql_restore_from_storage_bd or the other database backup tools (mysql/postgres). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., database must exist, storage.bd tenant must be configured) or whether this is the recommended step before destructive operations like truncate/drop. The description is purely a verb phrase with no usage context.

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