ecp_postgres_backup_to_storage_bd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It names the action and destination but does not mention side effects, whether the backup runs asynchronously, how long it may take, or what happens on failure. For a backup operation these are material unknowns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the verb, object, and destination, which is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain what response the agent can expect, whether a job identifier is returned, or how to check backup status. These missing details matter for correct invocation and follow-up.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not compensate. The only parameter, db_name, is left to be understood from its name and the phrase 'Postgres database'; the description adds no detail about format, ownership, or validity requirements.

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 ('Back up'), a clear resource ('a Postgres database'), and a destination ('the account's storage.bd tenant'). This distinguishes it from sibling backup tools for MySQL, MongoDB, and MSSQL, as well as from restore operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools such as ecp_postgres_restore_from_storage_bd or ecp_storage_bd_job_status. The usage context is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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