server_backup

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description adds important behavioral context: SAFE_MODE blocks restore, snapshots require API token, snapshots unavailable for manually added servers, and backup methods differ by server type. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed and structured with two paragraphs, but it is somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the main purpose but could be more concise without losing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, server types, SAFE_MODE, API tokens), the description covers most aspects. It mentions prerequisites (API token for snapshots) and limitations (SAFE_MODE blocks restore). However, it does not explain what SAFE_MODE is or where backups/snapshots are stored. With output schema present, return values are covered.

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 schema already describes parameters well. The description adds some context (e.g., SAFE_MODE implications) but largely repeats information already in the schema's enum descriptions. Baseline score 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 clearly states it handles backup and snapshot operations for Kastell servers, with specific details on each action and differentiation between Coolify and bare servers. It is distinct from sibling tools like server_audit or server_fix, which have different purposes.

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 detailed guidance on which action to use for what (e.g., backup-create vs backup-restore) and notes limitations like SAFE_MODE and API token requirements. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, though the distinct purpose makes it clear when to use this tool.

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