farm_archive

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that downloads write a private ZIP file at output_path and that private conversations and credentials are excluded. However, it doesn't mention that archive creation is likely asynchronous (requiring status polling), whether existing files at output_path are overwritten, what the response for each operation looks like, or any permission requirements. These are critical for correct invocation, especially for a tool with five distinct operations.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently covers the tool's capabilities and key side effects. It is not padded, and the critical fact about writing a ZIP is included. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for operations) and buries the exclusions at the end. Still, it is concise and front-loads the main actions.

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?

Given the tool has five operations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the lifecycle (create → status → download), the purpose of export_id, how to handle async operations, or what happens on cancel. It also doesn't describe the response structure for list or status. An agent would need to infer too much from operation names and parameter names alone, risking incorrect calls.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions output_path (for downloads) and implicitly operation via the action list. It does not explain farm_id (which farm to archive) or export_id (how to reference an archive for status/cancel/download). The operation enum is self-explanatory, but the mapping between operations and required parameters is absent. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's role: managing farm archives with five operations (create, list, inspect, cancel, download). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on archives, and mentions the resource (farm archive) and actions. However, the word 'inspect' in the description does not exactly match the 'status' operation in the enum, creating minor ambiguity about what the operation actually does.

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 some usage context: no subscription needed, downloads write a private ZIP at output_path, and certain data is excluded. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but there are no sibling archive tools, so this is acceptable. It doesn't state when to use this vs. other tools for data export, nor does it describe prerequisites like having a farm_id. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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