Back up a backing image

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and the missing-schema caveat. It does not mention side effects, whether a backup target is required, whether the operation is asynchronous, or any permission or idempotency considerations.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the necessary schema caveat and a doc link. Every sentence contributes useful information for invoking the tool.

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 is incomplete on its own for an action with no annotations and no output schema. It does address the missing input schema by pointing to a discovery mechanism, which is valuable. However, it omits prerequisites such as needing a configured backup target, and it does not comment on response shape or job lifecycle. An agent could likely succeed after using the suggested discovery path, but the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 50%, with only 'extra' having a schema description. The description adds useful direction: the exact body is version-dependent, and agents should call longhorn_describe_resource_type('backingImage') or pass fields via 'extra'. This compensates partially for the sparse schema but does not clarify the meaning of 'name' beyond it being required.

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 action: "Create a backup of a backing image." This is a specific verb plus resource, and the title reinforces it. Although it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from the other backing-image-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It focuses on a schema caveat and how to discover the body shape, which is invocation guidance rather than usage context. No mention is made of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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