compress_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the WISP_ALLOW_FILE_WRITES prerequisite is a hard environmental gate an agent must know about, and 'creates a new filesystem object' clarifies it is additive rather than modifying existing files. It does not disclose the generated archive's name or format, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the core action and the path limit front-loaded before the usage hint and the write-permission requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what an agent gets back — the archive's filename, location, or format — especially since 'to' defaults to '/' and the generated name is unpredictable. It adequately covers the input side and the permission gate but leaves the return contract opaque for a tool that produces a new artifact.

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 100%, so paths, to and server_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the 100-item maximum already enforced by maxItems and adds no semantics about the 'to' destination or server_id default behavior. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an archive from up to 100 server paths') and includes the cardinality bound. It is clearly distinct from the inverse sibling decompress_archive, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from backup tools like create_backup, which is the most likely confusion.

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?

'Use for packaging or pre-change snapshots' gives clear positive usage context, and the 100-path cap signals when the tool is not appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. create_backup for managed backups) or stating any exclusion, so it sits at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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