Back up a website

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this is asynchronous and must be polled, which is not derivable from the annotations. It still omits what the backup produces or whether it can be safely re-run, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the completion-check guidance. No filler or restatement of the name or title.

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 one-parameter async tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gap: how to detect completion. It does not describe what a backup yields or any size/duration caveats, but the annotations carry the safety profile, so it is nearly complete.

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 100% and the single parameter (id) is documented as "Website id." The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Start a site backup"), which is clear enough to separate it from db_backup and site_list_backups by name. It does not explicitly state scope limitations or call out the sibling it is not, 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?

"Poll panel_install_task_count or site_backups to see when it finishes" is post-invocation guidance, not when-to-use guidance. It names two useful follow-up tools, but gives no condition for choosing this over an alternative or any prerequisite context.

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