treeflow_create_backup

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 behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the backup includes intents, canvas, and configuration, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, asynchronous behavior, retention, or whether an existing backup is overwritten. Some behavior is disclosed, but not all.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every part earns its place: the verb, resource, scope, and timing condition. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Overall the description is largely complete for a simple two-parameter creation tool: it explains what is captured, why, and when to use it. However, it does not mention what the call returns, how to verify the backup, or that backups can later be found via treeflow_list_backups. These are minor gaps, not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parenthetical content refers to what is backed up, not to the parameters. The relationship between 'bot actual' and the required tree_id could be clearer but is inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Crea') and a clear resource ('respaldo/snapshot completo del bot actual'), and further specifies scope with the parenthetical '(intents, canvas, configuración)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling CRUD and list 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'antes de realizar cambios masivos'. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended trigger is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when this backup tool is appropriate.

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