Create Backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description earns some credit by adding that the backup 'runs in the background,' i.e. the call returns before completion — useful async context. It does not say whether prior backups are replaced, whether there is a backup-count limit, or what the call returns (no output schema either).

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, zero filler, and the async behavior is front-loaded right after the action. Nothing to trim.

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 zero-param mutation with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves practical gaps: how to observe completion (the get_backup_status sibling exists but is never referenced) and whether repeated calls accumulate or overwrite backups — an important point given idempotentHint=false.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 'Homey configuration' scope note does confirm what gets backed up.

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 ('Schedule a new backup of the Homey configuration'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling get_backup_status. It stops short of naming that sibling or otherwise differentiating, but the action itself is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer 'call this to make a backup,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to get_backup_status for checking progress. Nothing misleading, but nothing routing either.

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