qui_trigger_backup

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose safety and side-effect behaviors. It merely states 'call the endpoint' without mentioning that this starts a backup job, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, permission requirements, or potential consequences. For a mutation trigger, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately names the endpoint and the parameter-passing convention. It avoids fluff, but its brevity is also a drawback because it omits crucial context. Still, it is appropriately sized for what it does say.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a trigger operation. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist), whether the backup runs in the background, how to interpret the response, or error possibilities. Combined with the minimal schema, the agent lacks the context needed for safe and effective 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?

The schema provides only a generic 'arguments' object with no property descriptions, and coverage is 0%. The description adds a structural convention (path vars in arguments, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), but it doesn't specify which path variables (beyond the inferable instanceID), query parameters, or body fields are needed. This is insufficient to construct a correct request without external API knowledge.

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 explicitly names the endpoint POST /instances/{instanceID}/backups/run, which clearly indicates it triggers a backup. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_list_backup_runs by targeting the 'run' action. However, it doesn't explicitly state the effect ('starts a backup'), so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_list_backup_runs or qui_delete_backup_run. The description only covers parameter passing mechanics, not the circumstances in which triggering a backup is appropriate or how it fits with other backup-related tools.

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