liara_create_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('create') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing backups), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., backup ID, status). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—'Create a database backup'—making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), output details (e.g., what is returned), and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'databaseName' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a database is involved, which is already clear from the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'Create a database backup' clearly states the action (create) and resource (database backup), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_restore_backup' or 'liara_list_backups' beyond the basic verb, missing specific scope or method details that would distinguish it more precisely.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot create backup while database is stopped), or related tools like 'liara_list_backups' for viewing existing backups, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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