update_backup_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update an existing backup job' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is a full replacement or merge, what permissions are needed, if it triggers a backup immediately, or if it is idempotent. The description lacks important behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with two paragraphs: first states purpose and usage, second lists parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. Minor room for improvement: could merge the parameter list into a single line, but overall efficient.

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 is a mutation with 2 simple parameters and no annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, side effects, and output. It does not describe what happens after the update (e.g., returns success, modifies existing job), nor does it mention that the config_json must match the export format. An output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to explain return values.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates: for backup_id it clarifies 'Numeric ID' (though schema says string), and for config_json it says 'Modified JSON string of the backup configuration'. This adds meaning over plain 'string' types, but does not provide format specifics, examples, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Update an existing backup job from a modified JSON configuration', specifying the verb 'update' and resource 'backup config'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing export_backup_config and listing modifiable fields like sources, settings, schedule, filters, making it distinct from import_backup_config or run_backup.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to modify ... on an existing job', providing clear usage context. It also mentions 'as exported by export_backup_config', guiding the agent on prerequisite steps. However, it does not explicitly exclude use for new jobs or contrast with import_backup_config, which might be used for importing a new config instead of updating.

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