server_backup

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context: SAFE_MODE blocks restore, snapshots require API token, and snapshots unavailable for manually added servers. 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then systematically covers all actions. While comprehensive, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient for the complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is complete. It covers all actions, their prerequisites, limitations, and special behaviors, leaving no gaps in understanding how to use the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining nuances like SAFE_MODE implications for backup-restore and the requirement for API token for snapshots, which helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool handles 'Backup and snapshot Kastell servers' and enumerates specific actions for backup and snapshot operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_audit or server_manage by focusing exclusively on backup/snapshot functionality.

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 clear context for when to use each action (backup-create, backup-list, etc.) and notes restrictions like SAFE_MODE blocking restores and snapshots not available for manually added servers. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient.

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