Create a Supervisor backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains the full-vs-partial endpoint selection, clarifies that older backups are never deleted, documents the required SUPERVISOR_TOKEN environment variable, describes HTTP and timeout error shapes, and warns that full backups can take minutes. This is rich operational disclosure that goes well past the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then structured into Use when, Not for, Returns, Errors, and Limits sections. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 non-idempotent, mutating backup-creation tool with four parameters, this description covers the necessary context: when to use it versus system_create_backup, endpoint behavior, authentication failures, timeout handling, and expected return content. An output schema exists, but the description still helpfully notes that a new backup slug is returned on success.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description still adds useful semantics by explaining the conditional endpoint behavior: full backup when neither addons nor folders is given, otherwise partial backup using those slugs/folders. It also frames password as enabling a password-protected backup, which reinforces the parameter's purpose.

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), resource (Supervisor backup), and scope (full or partial), and explicitly distinguishes itself from system_create_backup by noting it never deletes older backups. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from the closest sibling.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' guidance, naming system_create_backup as the alternative for quick automatic backups that may prune old ones. It also tells the agent to check supervisor_list_backups before retrying after a timeout, giving clear operational context.

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