manage_backups

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 explicitly warns that restore 'OVERWRITES current state and restarts services' and advises confirming with the operator, which is critical for a potentially destructive operation. It does not mention deletion permanence, but the restore warning is a strong 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?

The description is concise, with each sentence adding value: the first enumerates actions, the second provides a critical safety warning, and the third states a prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main operations, key safety warnings, and prerequisites. It doesn't explain return values, but this is not essential for a backup management tool. The description is adequate for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (action, file, components) with 100% coverage. The description adds a bit of practical guidance (e.g., 'state which archive and components first'), but it doesn't substantially augment the schema's parameter semantics.

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 specific verbs: 'list archives, start a backup, restore from an archive, or delete one.' It identifies the resource (Relayer configuration backups) and distinguishes the tool from siblings that handle other 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 gives clear context: it is used for managing backups, and it explicitly notes a prerequisite ('Backups must be enabled'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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