Create Backup

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the side effect of creating a backup and that an operation_id is returned, but it does not state that the backup is likely asynchronous, how long it may take, whether it consumes storage quota, or what happens if a backup is already in progress. For a mutating tool with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then notes the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 small two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient and even names the return field. However, with no output schema and no mention of how to poll or handle the returned operation_id, an agent must infer the next step from the sibling kinsta_operations_status tool. That missing async-completion context is a real but modest gap.

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 schema already documents both env_id and the optional tag. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, such as tag format constraints or how env_id relates to the environment. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states an unambiguous action ('Create a manual backup'), the target resource ('an environment'), and a concrete return contract ('operation_id'). The qualifier 'manual' also helps distinguish it from siblings like kinsta_backups_restore, kinsta_backups_delete, kinsta_backups_list, and kinsta_backups_create-downloadable.

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 phrase 'manual backup' gives some implied context that this is a user-initiated action rather than a scheduled or downloadable backup. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over kinsta_backups_create-downloadable, kinsta_backups_restore, or kinsta_backups_list, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the environment needing to exist.

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