mcp-cohesity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Trigger an on-demand backup' implies a write operation that initiates a process, it lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens if a backup is already running, expected response format, or potential side effects. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after triggering (e.g., returns a job ID, runs asynchronously), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of backup operations and lack of structured fields, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (id, run_type, objects). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of different run_types or object selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 the action ('Trigger an on-demand backup run') and the target resource ('protection group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_protection_run' or 'list_protection_runs', which are read-only operations versus this write operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the protection group must be configured first), nor does it clarify when to use this versus scheduled backups or other backup-related tools in the sibling list.

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