zont_generate_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the creation-then-download handoff and the archive_id artifact, but says nothing about whether the job is async/long-running, permission requirements, or behavior for very large ranges.

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-loads the purpose, then the workflow handoff, then a compact per-parameter glossary. Every block earns its place with no filler.

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 4-required-param generation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, and all parameters adequately. The only gap is operational context (async nature, limits), which is minor given the output schema handles return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it defines all four parameters, gives units and inclusivity for mintime/maxtime (unix time, включительно), and explains split_by as per-day vs per-month file splitting with the literal enum values.

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+resource with scope: 'Запросить создание архива со всеми данными устройства за период времени'. It also names the downstream sibling (zont_download_archive), making the tool trivially distinguishable from it.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do next: the returned archive_id must be passed to zont_download_archive, establishing the two-step workflow. It does not state when not to use it or any preconditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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