compress_write

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: creates backup on first call, overwrites on retry, returns {valid, errors}, and suggests fallback to compress_restore. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it omits details like authentication or error conditions.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, but additional parameter detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no annotations, output schema referenced), the description covers return format, retry behavior, and fallback. It is largely complete, though parameter semantics are a gap.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not elaborate on the parameters (filepath, compressed_content) beyond their names. It fails to specify expected formats or constraints for compressed_content, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

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 writes compressed content to a file, with backup and overwrite behavior. The name 'compress_write' and the mention of 'compress_restore' implicitly distinguish it from siblings, but no direct comparison to compress_prepare is made.

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?

Provides context on first call vs retry (backup vs overwrite) and advises calling compress_restore if errors persist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus compress_prepare or other alternatives.

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