Update backup target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: discloses read-merge-write under the hood, the API's full-replace PUT behavior, the consequence that repointing URL can break restore access, and flags the action as destructive. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose first, then merge/replace nuance, then risk and authorization constraint. The documentation link adds value without bloat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the critical decision factors: destructive nature, merge semantics, impact of repointing, and explicit authorization requirement. Lacks detail on return value and doesn't mention every parameter (e.g. maxBackupJobs), but for an update tool with a doc link this is nearly complete.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the meaning and risk of backupTargetURL, credentialSecret, and pollInterval, and clarifies that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it doesn't clarify the required 'name' parameter or 'maxBackupJobs', so not all parameters get semantic coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a backup target') and lists representative fields (backupTargetURL, credentialSecret, pollInterval), making it clear this is a settings-update tool. The merge semantics also distinguish it from backuptarget_update_name and create/delete siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-call guidance: only with explicit user authorization, never proactively or as a side effect. Also explains when it applies (updating target settings). It doesn't name sibling alternatives like backuptarget_update_name, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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