Back up an environment

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses mutation of a live environment, the confirm requirement, the dry-run fallback, and that it runs pac admin backup with the active pac auth profile. The main downside is duplicating the same mutation warning rather than adding further behavioral detail such as impact or output.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains redundant phrasing: 'Changes a live environment: requires confirm: true' and 'Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise)' say roughly the same thing. One sentence could be removed without losing 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?

With 7 parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description adds the essential manual-vs-file backup distinction, the underlying command, and the critical confirm/dry-run behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though return behavior is only hinted at via dry-run wording.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly reinforces what the schema already documents about confirm and profile, adding only the underlying pac admin backup command context. It doesn't meaningfully clarify label, environment, background, or timeout beyond the schema.

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 action: taking a manual backup of an environment, and immediately contrasts it with the file backup that cs_backup_tenant writes. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from a closely named sibling.

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?

Clearly tells the agent this is the platform backup, not cs_backup_tenant's file backup, and explains the confirm/dry-run behavior. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it relative to all backup-related siblings, but the primary alternative is named and the usage context is clear.

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