Toggle backup lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful behavioral consequence of locking (blocks deletion and rotation). However, it omits toggle semantics — whether the call inverts current state, is idempotent, or what it returns — and says nothing about required permissions or reversibility of the unlock direction.

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 the core action first and the consequence in a parenthetical — no wasted words. It is terse enough that it could afford one more clause on toggle behavior without becoming bloated.

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?

This is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, including four auth/panel override params. The description never resolves the central ambiguity of a toggle-style tool (no desired-state parameter) nor states what happens on repeat invocation, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent about to mutate backup state.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description names no parameters at all; the two required parameters (server, backup) have no schema descriptions, so an agent must infer that they identify the target backup and its owning server. Panel/baseUrl/clientKey/applicationKey are documented in the schema, so the description's silence there is acceptable.

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 pair (lock/unlock) and resource (backup), and adds the consequence that locked backups cannot be deleted or rotated out, which makes the effect tangible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from backup_delete/backup_restore, but the action is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it.

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?

No guidance on when to lock versus leave unlocked, no prerequisites (permissions, backup state), and no mention of alternatives. Since there is no target-state parameter, an agent gets no hint that this flips the current state rather than setting an explicit lock value.

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