Trigger Node Backup

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond those: the node moves to the head of the queue, the backup runs asynchronously, and name/IP matching is group-less with a uniqueness requirement. It also explains the consequence of a changed configuration (a new version appears), giving the agent a full picture of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states the action immediately, followed by two sentences that earn their place by covering async behavior, follow-up steps, and a critical uniqueness constraint. No fluff or repetition.

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 three parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what happens (queued async backup), how to verify the result (get_node, list_node_versions), and a key constraint (unique node names). The output schema handles return-value details, so no critical context is missing.

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%, with clear descriptions for node, user, and message. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue an immediate configuration backup of a node.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling retrieval tools like get_node_config or list_node_versions by focusing on triggering a backup rather than reading data. The follow-up references to get_node and list_node_versions further disambiguate its role.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an immediate backup is needed. It also provides post-invocation guidance ('Check get_node afterwards... list_node_versions for a new version') and a uniqueness prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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