nexterm_create_backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write touching external systems. The description adds the meaningful precondition that the provider must exist already, but says nothing about whether the backup runs asynchronously, where it lands, or what happens if provider_id is invalid.

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. It is terse to the point of being sparse, but every word contributes.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and precondition. It is still missing whether the call returns a backup identifier or job handle and whether the operation is synchronous, which an agent would want before calling a non-idempotent, open-world write.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of provider_id. It does partially: the phrase 'existing configured provider' tells the agent the ID must reference a previously configured backup provider rather than an arbitrary string. It gives no format, source of IDs, or validation hints, so the parameter remains under-specified.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a backup') and adds the constraint that it must go through an existing configured provider. This clearly separates it from siblings like nexterm_list_provider_backups and nexterm_restore_backup, though it never mentions how it relates to nexterm_get_backup_settings or nexterm_delete_backup_file.

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?

'using an existing configured provider' implies a prerequisite (a provider_id from a configured backup provider must already exist), which is useful implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over restore_backup or list_provider_backups, and no exclusions or error-path guidance.

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