create_backup

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits, such as the 'wait' parameter returning a UPID instead of a result, and mode options including 'snapshot' (no downtime). However, it does not describe broader side effects like backup duration, storage requirements, or what a UPID means to the caller.

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, clear opening line followed by a compact parameter list. No wasted words; every line provides necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema and the fact that all parameters are explained, the description is fairly complete for invoking the tool. It lacks high-level context such as prerequisites or typical use cases, but these are not critical for this moderate-complexity 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: vmid, storage, mode (with allowed values), compress (with allowed values), notes, and wait (with behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Back up') and resource ('VM or container'), and even names the underlying utility (vzdump). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_snapshot or list_backups, which are related but different operations.

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 only lists parameters with no contextual direction, such as when a backup is preferable to a snapshot or clone. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making support.

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