Back up an environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that this mutates a live environment, that confirm:true is required, and that otherwise a dry run is returned. It never mentions what happens to existing backups or retention, and the confirm/dry-run point is stated twice, slightly muddying the signal.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and useful, but the trailing sentence ('Changes a live environment: requires confirm: true... Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise).') restates the same fact twice and pads length without adding information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key risk (live mutation, confirm gate, dry-run fallback) and the underlying command. It leaves backup retention/overwrite behavior and what the dry run returns unstated, which is a 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter including confirm, profile, background, and timeoutSeconds is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the profile default behavior, which the schema also covers, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning.

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 ('Take a manual backup of an environment') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cs_backup_tenant, which writes a file backup. An agent can pick this tool over that one without opening either schema.

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 clarifies the alternative (cs_backup_tenant's file backup vs this platform backup) and notes it runs with the active pac auth profile. It doesn't state when NOT to use it beyond that contrast, nor mention prerequisites like the confirm flag routing to cs_admin_list_backups.

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