winops_archive_add

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false (a write operation) and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral detail by stating the archive must already exist (existing ZIP), listing the return format, and noting the ZIP-only limitation. This goes beyond annotations by providing the output structure and format constraints, though it doesn't cover error cases or overwrite behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clear markdown for return format and example, and includes a critical note about ZIP-only support. Every sentence serves a purpose: the return format helps agents parse output, the example demonstrates correct syntax, and the note prevents misuse. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple tool with two parameters, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return format, an example, and a key limitation (ZIP-only). It doesn't explicitly address edge cases like archive nonexistence or failure behavior, but these are implied by 'existing' and the return format's success flag. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema in the description, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: path as 'Existing ZIP archive path.' and source_files as 'Files to add to the archive.' The description does not add semantics beyond these, except for the example showing usage. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 applies; the example is helpful but doesn't introduce new meaning.

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 action: 'Add files to an existing ZIP archive.' It specifies a specific verb (add), resource (existing ZIP archive), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'Only ZIP archives are supported for add. Use create for TAR.' This is a crisp, specific purpose that differentiates from create/extract/list tools.

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 clear usage context: it says to use this tool for adding to an existing ZIP archive, and explicitly gives an alternative for TAR archives ('Use create for TAR'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it for other archive operations like extract, but the main purpose is unambiguous. This offers solid guidance with a named alternative, though not exhaustive.

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