Create automatic HA backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it warns that a configured retention count prunes older automatic backups as a side effect, discloses the conditional service dispatch, and specifies the exact error returned when neither service is registered. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into Use/Not-for/Returns/Errors/Limits sections. It is somewhat verbose and the Supervisor-vs-Core dispatch is explained twice, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers dispatch logic, side effects, usage exclusions, and the exact error payload. Even though an output schema exists, the additional return/error notes make the definition fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by stating the Core/Container path takes 'no name, folder selection or password', confirming there is nothing to pass. No further param semantics are needed.

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 (HA backup) plus the exact service dispatch logic (`backup.create` on Core/Container vs `backup.create_automatic` on Supervisor). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `supervisor_create_backup`, so an agent can select between them without opening schemas.

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' clauses, and names the alternative tool (`supervisor_create_backup`) along with the conditions that select it (named/partial/password-protected backup, or one that never deletes older ones). Nothing is left to inference.

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