wordpress_full_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't describe what 'complete site backup' entails operationally—such as whether it's incremental/full, where backups are stored, permissions required, estimated time, or side effects. For a backup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like backup location, format, or success indicators. For a backup operation, more context on what 'complete' entails would be helpful, but it meets minimum viability for a no-param tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it does imply the scope ('files + database'), providing minimal context. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools as they require no compensation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('complete site backup') with specific components ('files + database'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wordpress_backup_database' and 'wordpress_backup_files' by combining both aspects, but doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation in the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the separate database or file backup tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites, timing considerations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit direction.

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