zip_paths

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

Annotations are minimal: readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, destructiveHint=false suggests no data destruction, but the description adds little beyond 'Create'. It does not disclose whether existing archives are overwritten, whether directories are traversed recursively, whether symlinks are followed, or what happens if input paths are missing. With no annotation coverage of these behaviors, the description carries the burden but fails to address them.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is appropriate, yet the lack of crucial details makes it less effective. It is neither verbose nor well-structured; it is simply minimal.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to know whether the tool overwrites existing archives, how directory structures are preserved, and what error behavior occurs. The absence of these details, combined with the tool's potential side effects, makes the definition inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 both parameters. It only says 'from files and directories', implying paths are file/directory paths, but it does not specify the expected string format (e.g., comma-separated list, JSON array, or wildcard support) or the nature of the output path (existing vs. new). The output parameter is entirely unexplained. This leaves significant ambiguity for an 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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('zip archive'), and specifies the source ('from files and directories'). It distinguishes from siblings like unzip_path, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other file-related tools such as unzip_path, download_file, or delete_path. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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