Upload backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the authorization requirement ('Superuser only') and the expected input form (a local backup .zip file). It does not mention side effects, validation behavior, size limits, or what happens on upload, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action and target, the second states the access requirement. There is no filler, no redundancy with the title/schema, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter upload tool, the combination of the description and full schema coverage gives an agent the essential invocation details: what to upload, where it goes, and who may do it. It does not explicitly contrast with create_backup/restore_backup or describe the response, but these are relatively minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is already fully described as 'Local filesystem path to the backup .zip file to upload.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a clear, specific action ('Upload') with a specific resource ('an existing local backup zip file') and destination ('into the instance's backups'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools such as create_backup (which creates a backup on the instance) and restore_backup (which restores a 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 gives clear context: this tool is for uploading a pre-existing local zip into the instance's backups, and it explicitly restricts usage to superusers. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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