run_cluster_backup

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the whole burden. It discloses that it waits for completion, verifies a new backup file, reports file metadata, leaves backups inside app folders, and copies nothing. It does not mention failure modes or authorization requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the waiting behavior is clarified, and the non-copying boundary is stated at the end. Every sentence contributes useful 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 no-input, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it states target apps, action, synchonization behavior, verification step, return details, and side-effect boundary. No important invocation information appears to be missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds useful context by defining the scope ('each configured Servarr app'), and no parameter clarification is 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?

The description names a specific verb ('asks... to create'), the resource ('built-in database backup' for each Servarr app), and the observable outcome (waiting, confirming, reporting file name/size/time). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like manage_stalled_downloads or get_plex_activity.

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 explicit alternative or 'use instead' guidance, but the context is unmistakable: use when you need each configured Servarr app to create a database backup and verify it. No sibling tool appears to compete for the same operation, so missing exclusions is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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