create_archive

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

With no annotations at all, the description does substantial work: it discloses defaults (zip), that symlinks are refused, that the output is never overwritten unless overwrite=true, that deterministic=true yields byte-identical output with a returned sha256, and that zips cannot be encrypted due to a standard-library limit. It stops short of stating permission requirements, error/partial-failure behavior, or where relative output paths are resolved.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized parameter by parameter with concrete defaults and examples. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the paragraph form makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted list would.

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 six-parameter write tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and zero annotation coverage, the description covers the risky behaviors well: symlink refusal, overwrite guard, determinism. The main remaining gap is the 'output' parameter and any error handling, which the agent would need before calling confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does for five of six: format alternatives, sources base-name/recursive storage, excludes glob matching against stored paths and path components, overwrite protection, and deterministic semantics. Only 'output' is left unexplained (path resolution, parent directory creation, absolute vs relative).

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 ('Create an archive from files and directories') that an agent can immediately distinguish from read-only siblings such as extract_archive, list_entries and verify_archive. The following sentences reinforce the arity of the operation (sources in, single output file out).

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the description tells you how to pack files but never says when to prefer this over siblings, nor any preconditions (e.g. that the destination directory must exist). It does implicitly route the agent away from this tool for reading/extraction, but only through the verb choice.

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