ssh_backup_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It candidly discloses side effects: writing two artifacts, pruning old backups by retention, running pre/post hooks, defaulting compression, and erroring on 'full'.

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?

Four compact sentences front-load the core action and artifact description, then pack defaults, pruning behavior, and hooks without redundancy. Every sentence contributes operational value.

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?

For a 13-parameter remote mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential conditions, defaults, side effects, and the failure mode for unsupported types. An agent has enough to validate inputs and anticipate consequences before calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter constraints: database types require database, files requires paths, and defaults for retention, compress, and backupDir. This goes beyond the 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?

States a concrete action ('Creates...backup'), identifies the transport ('over SSH'), and specifies the output artifacts ('compressed archive plus a JSON metadata file'). The supported types and explicit 'full' error help distinguish it from sibling backup tools.

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?

Clearly communicates the use context: on-demand SSH backups with type-specific prerequisites and an unsupported full mode. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over ssh_db_dump or ssh_backup_schedule, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended use.

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