Import zip archive

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the key operational detail that extracted files overwrite existing files at the same paths and warns that the 'zip' rate limit is often one import per period. This is real behavior beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about failure modes or whether the target folder must already exist.

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 operation and overwrite semantics, then the rate-limit warning, then an example. All three blocks carry information, with only minor redundancy between the example and the schema descriptions.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers overwrite semantics and rate limiting but omits what a reasonable agent still needs: that one of the two zip sources is mandatory, whether the folder is created if absent, and what a success or partial-extract result looks like.

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 folder, zip_base64 and zip_local_path are already documented in the schema; the description's example only illustrates one combination of them. It does not clarify the meaningful ambiguity that zero parameters are required, i.e. that at least one of zip_local_path or zip_base64 must be supplied.

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 ('Upload a .zip archive and extract it into a folder of your Nekoweb site') and adds the distinguishing intent 'to deploy a whole site at once', which separates it from the single-file sibling nekoweb_upload_file without naming it directly. An agent can identify the operation, though an explicit sibling callout would make it airtight.

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?

Gives a concrete intent-to-call example ('Deploy my built site') and an explicit prerequisite: check nekoweb_get_limits first because the 'zip' rate limit is strict. It lacks an explicit negative case (e.g. 'for a single file use nekoweb_upload_file instead'), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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