ssh_backup_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: writes compressed archive + JSON metadata, prunes backups older than retention days (default 7), compress defaults to true, runs pre/post hooks, and that 'full' type errors. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, type support, default behaviors, and hooks. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects (what it creates, type-specific requirements, defaults, pruning, hooks). It does not describe the return value or error handling, but this is reasonable for a creation tool where the output is implicit.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by clarifying parameter relationships (e.g., 'database types require database; files requires paths') and defaults (compress, retention). This contextual information aids parameter selection beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states it creates a database or file backup over SSH, writing a compressed archive and metadata file. It lists supported types (mysql, postgresql, mongodb, files) and notes that 'full' is not implemented. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_backup_list and ssh_backup_restore.

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 provides implicit guidance by stating which types require which parameters (e.g., 'Database types require database; files requires paths'). It also mentions that 'full' is not yet implemented, guiding the agent away from using it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ssh_backup_schedule for scheduled backups.

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