create_container_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention potential side effects such as container interruption during backup, storage requirements, or that the backup may be stored remotely. The agent is left without critical operational knowledge.

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 short sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is useful, and there is no filler or redundancy. It achieves clarity with minimal verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the backup process, what happens on success or failure, prerequisites like storage availability, or how the backup can be identified later. The description provides almost no contextual richness, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already defines each parameter's purpose. No additional semantic guidance is provided in the description, so it neither helps nor hinders.

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 'Create a backup of a container' clearly states the action (create backup) and the target resource (container), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from VM-focused tools like create_vm_backup and snapshot tools by using the term 'container,' but does not explicitly state alternatives or edge cases.

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. There is no mention of preferring it over create_container_snapshot for quick snapshots, or using create_vm_backup for VMs. The absence of any context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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