ssh_backup_schedule

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 states the tool mutates the remote filesystem and crontab, writes an executable script to a specific path, typically needs root, and that the generated script deletes old backups based on retention. This is unusually transparent for a mutating tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the core scheduling action, second discloses side effects and permissions, third lists supported types and default retention. The information is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

The description is largely complete for a 7-parameter tool: it explains side effects, permission needs, supported backup types, and the retention default. The main gap is that it does not clarify conditional parameter requirements, such as paths being needed when type=files, though the schema partially signals this.

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 some context by referencing the cron expression, supported backup types, and retention default, but it does not need to deeply explain individual parameters because the schema already documents them well.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it 'schedules a recurring backup' by writing a script and installing a crontab entry. It clearly distinguishes itself from one-off siblings like ssh_backup_create and restore by emphasizing recurrence via cron.

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 makes the usage context clear: recurring backups via cron on a remote server, with explicit mention of requiring root to write the target path. It does not explicitly name an alternative for one-off backups, but the recurring/cron framing is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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