decompress_archive

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: existing paths may be overwritten and the WISP_ALLOW_FILE_WRITES environment prerequisite must be set — a real gating condition an agent cannot learn from annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the destructive gating information follows immediately.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the write precondition and the overwrite risk. Format support and destination semantics are the only minor omissions.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning ("existing paths may be affected") and notably does not clarify whether `path` is the archive itself and where the extracted contents land, nor which formats are supported.

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 ("Extract an archive in the server filesystem"), which is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with the sibling compress_files. It does not name that sibling or any alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 only when archive contents should be written to disk" gives a clear positive condition and implies the negative case (inspect or read without writing). However, it never names which sibling to use instead when disk writes are not wanted, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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