backups_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that confirm is required and that where must be a recognized destination, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, reversibility, duration, or what happens on failure. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the one-line purpose is followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information beyond what is needed for clarity.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics needed to invoke it: what it does, which user, where, and the confirmation requirement. However, it omits when to use it relative to backup-related siblings and any operational context such as prerequisites or expected behavior after submission.

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%, so the parameter explanations are essential. The description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: username is the account to back up, where is a panel-recognized destination with examples, and confirm is flagged as required. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, though the 'Required' wording is slightly ambiguous against the schema's default of false.

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 states a specific action verb ('Create') and the exact resource scope ('a backup for one user'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backups_restore or backups_admin_now. This is immediately actionable and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not reference backups_restore, backups_admin_now, or backups_admin_list, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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