ecp_mysql_backup_to_storage_bd

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the key behavioral trait that the backup target is the account's remote storage.bd tenant rather than a local file. However, it omits what happens to any existing backup, whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, the backup naming convention, and whether a job is created asynchronously (as implied by ecp_storage_bd_job_status existing). This is a minimal, not misleading disclosure.

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, well-formatted sentence that directly states the action and destination with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'back up' and the resource 'MySQL database.' While it is short, the efficiency of writing is excellent; there is no wasted language, even though more behavioral detail could have been added without hurting clarity.

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 single‑parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of context. It is adequate for a minimal call: the agent knows the db_name and the destination. But given the sibling list includes ecp_storage_delen_get_config and ecp_storage_bd_job_status, an agent selecting this tool would benefit from knowing that a storage tenant must be configured, that the operation is likely asynchronous, and how to monitor its status. Those gaps make the context only partially 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 0%, so the schema provides no field documentation. The description implies that db_name refers to the MySQL database to back up, which adds basic semantic value. However, it does not explain the format of db_name (case sensitivity, whether it must exist in the account, or whether special characters are allowed) or how the backup is named/stored. The description covers the central parameter adequately but leaves edge cases completely open.

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: "Back up a MySQL database to the account's storage.bd tenant." This clearly identifies the action and destination, and the MySQL engine distinguishes it from similar backup tools for MSSQL and Postgres visible in the sibling list. It does not explicitly mention the restore sibling, but the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_mysql_export_database, ecp_mysql_import_database, or ecp_mysql_restore_from_storage_bd. There are no prerequisites (e.g., storage.bd tenant must be configured) and no mention of when a backup is preferable to an export. The agent must infer usage entirely from tool naming conventions.

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