run_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating, potentially long-running operation. It says nothing about whether the call blocks or returns immediately, required permissions, whether it can run concurrently with an existing backup, or how to learn of completion — all material for an agent invoking a backup kickoff.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the operational detail an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a confusingly similar sibling `backup_run`, the description should explain the return/async behavior and differentiation. As written, an agent must guess on both counts.

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 100% and the single parameter `job_id` is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond it — notably it does not say that a job id is obtained from `list_backups`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a backup job"), so the basic action is clear. However, the sibling list contains `backup_run`, a near-identical operation, and the description does nothing to distinguish the two — an agent cannot tell from this text which of the pair to call.

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 word "now" faintly implies on-demand execution versus a scheduled backup, but that is inference, not guidance. No alternatives are named, no exclusion is given, and the near-duplicate sibling `backup_run` is never acknowledged.

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