Compress files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it omits the destination path/filename, overwrite behavior, archive format, and permission requirements for a write operation. Only the source scope is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness of thought.

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?

A mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema; the description should explain where the archive lands and what happens on existing files. It does not, leaving the agent unable to call it 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 57%; the description only restates 'files' and 'root' while saying nothing about the server, panel, or inline credential override parameters (baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey). It also leaves ambiguous what 'under a root' means when root is optional.

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 (create) and resource (archive) plus the scoping constraint (files/directories under a root). It implicitly separates itself from files_decompress, but never names the archive format or destination, 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?

No statement of when to use this over alternatives such as files_decompress or files_upload_url, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and one sentence.

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