create_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that a tar.gz archive is created, where it is stored, and what the return JSON contains. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permission prerequisites, but it is reasonably transparent for a non-destructive 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, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a clear structure: action, destination, allowed source locations, Args, Returns. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects needed to call the tool: purpose, source restrictions, destination, parameters, and return format. Since an output schema exists, the return description is a helpful addition rather than a necessity. Minor gaps such as failure conditions and naming conventions prevent a perfect score.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must fully explain both parameters. It does: backup_type is defined as an identifier label with examples, and source_path is defined as the target directory. This is sufficient for an agent to populate both required arguments correctly.

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: 'Create a compressed tar.gz archive of an authorized website or configuration directory.' It clearly distinguishes this from all sibling tools, which are mostly read-only audit and monitoring tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 concrete usage constraints by listing permitted source locations and stating that archives are saved to an isolated backup repository. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the allowed paths and purpose provide clear contextual guidance.

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