panelica_file_manager_post_v1_files_extract

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, and the description adds the auth requirement 'Required scopes: files:write' and restates mutation as 'Mutating: changes server state.' It does not disclose extraction-side effects such as destination handling or whether remove_archive deletes the source, but the presence of annotations lowers the bar.

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 compact and scannable, with the action first and metadata lines below. It is not bloated, though most lines repeat structured information such as the HTTP path and method.

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, the description should have covered the request body's semantics and the operation's effects. It does not mention supported archive types, destination behavior, overwrite risk, the effect of remove_archive, or what a successful response looks like, so an agent has to guess at important calling details.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. The schema documents user_id, but archive_path, destination_path, and remove_archive remain empty in the schema and are not explained by the tool description.

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 the action clearly: 'Extract archive' with the HTTP path POST /v1/files/extract. It identifies a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling file-manager operations like compress/copy/move, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, no prerequisites are described, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The verb phrase implies extraction, but the description gives the agent no explicit decision context or exclusions.

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