Backup Self

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does state the backup's scope (codebase and configuration) and that snapshots are timestamped, which tells the agent snapshots accumulate rather than overwrite. It is silent on storage location, retention/rotation limits, and whether creating a backup can fail or take significant time — meaningful gaps for a mutation-adjacent 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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the timing rationale ('before applying edits') trailing it; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params) and an output schema exists to describe the returned snapshot metadata, so the description needn't explain return values. What remains uncovered is retention behavior and storage location, which are minor for a straightforward snapshot call but would be useful given the absence of annotations.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('timestamped backup snapshot of the server codebase and configuration'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling restore_backup, but the phrase 'before applying edits' implicitly positions it as the pre-mutation counterpart.

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 clause 'before applying edits' supplies a concrete trigger condition, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide when to call this. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but for a zero-parameter safety-net tool the guidance is clear enough in context.

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