run_backup_flow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry safety and behavior disclosure. It reveals the workflow involves multiple actions and cleanup, signaling mutability, but doesn't disclose failure behavior, permission needs, or what happens to pre-snapshots.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently listing the main workflow phases. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a high-level summary.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, side effects, return values, or error handling, making safe invocation difficult.

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%, and the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. It doesn't explain node/vmid/storage requirements or flags like mode, compress, resource_type, or snapshot handling.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Execute' and identifies resource as multi-step backup workflow, listing distinct steps (storage pre-checks, snapshotting, vzdump, cleanup). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like run_provisioning_workflow and individual snapshot tools.

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 communicates clear context: it is the tool for backup workflows, implying use when a full backup is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_snapshot_vm.

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