backup_create

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

The description only states that a backup is created and names possible types; it does not disclose side effects, required privileges, storage destinations, notification behavior, or output. Annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that.

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 direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main action and then lists the backup types succinctly. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for such a complex tool.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the one-line description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine which parameters are needed for each backup type, what the result will look like, or what side effects to expect. The description is minimally viable at best but inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 description carries the full burden of explaining the 10 parameters, but it only echoes the possible values of the type parameter. It does not clarify the meaning or role of vm, dest, source, live, notify, verify, comment, dry_run, or timeout_ms. This is a substantial gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Crée un backup' and enumerates the four supported backup types, which matches the type enum. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function and is distinguishable from the other backup_* siblings by its create action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling vm_snapshot, which overlaps with the 'vm-snapshot' backup type.

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 use backup_create versus alternatives like vm_snapshot, backup_restore, or backup_list. It lists possible types but does not explain the conditions under which one type should be chosen over another. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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