compress_files

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not contradict them. It adds the useful permission context 'Requires file-write access,' but it does not describe what happens to original files, where the archive goes, or how parameters like `to` and `server_id` affect behavior.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences serving distinct purposes: stating the action and noting a prerequisite. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to cover key parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and all-false annotations, the description must carry more weight. It lacks details about return values, archive format, behavior with multiple paths, and the role of `to`/`server_id`, making it under-specified for a tool with three parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only implies that `paths` are the files to compress. It does not clarify the meaning of `to` (likely destination) or `server_id` (which server), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 uses the specific verb 'Compress' with the resource 'server files,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompress_archive and other file operations. However, it omits scope details such as destination or archive format, keeping it from being fully specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, only stating the prerequisite 'Requires file-write access.' It does not mention when compression is appropriate or point to the inverse operation decompress_archive.

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