deployado_run_backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description's only extra signal is 'immediate', and it says nothing about whether the call blocks or returns a job handle, how long a backup takes, or whether repeated calls queue duplicate backups (idempotentHint=false makes that a real question).

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?

A single short sentence with verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to sparseness than to well-packed density.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety and idempotency profile, and no output schema to explain, the definition is close to sufficient. What is still missing is the operational context: whether the trigger is async, what the caller gets back, and how target_id is obtained.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as a UUID-typed 'Backup target ID', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'for a target' adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, which makes the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trigger an immediate backup') plus the scope ('for a target'), which lets an agent separate it from deployado_list_backup_targets, create_backup_target, and restore_backup. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so no credit for explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of creating a new target, restoring a backup, or letting a scheduled backup run. It also omits the prerequisite that target_id must come from list_backup_targets, forcing the agent to infer the workflow.

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