winops_archive_create

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description adds an output shape ('success', 'path', 'archive_type', 'file_count') and an example. However, it does not disclose important behaviors like whether an existing archive is overwritten or whether directories are included recursively.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose, a minimal return-format block, and a single focused example. No filler or redundant prose.

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 create-archive tool with a clear output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the core contract adequately. It lacks only optional nuance such as overwrite behavior and sibling-tool differentiation, but the provided example and schema are enough for typical 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?

All three parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the example, which illustrates path and source_files values. It does not clarify parameter nuances beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new ZIP or TAR archive from a list of files/directories,' naming the action, resource, input, and supported formats. The 'new' qualifier differentiates it from sibling archive tools like winops_archive_add, winops_archive_extract, and winops_archive_list.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as winops_archive_add or winops_archive_extract; usage is only implied by 'Create a new'. The example shows invocation but provides no selection guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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