extract_archive

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: extraction runs in the background, existing files are never overwritten and clashes get a numeric suffix, and encrypted, link and unsafe-path entries are skipped. The non-destructive claim is consistent with the annotation and is actually explained.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, overwrite policy, async job flow, skip rules, and permission requirement. The core action and the polling instruction are front-loaded, and there is 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 an asynchronous extraction tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the async lifecycle, where the result lands, collision behavior, skipped entry classes, and the auth requirement. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented. The description adds framing that paths can be a subset and that the output folder is named after the archive (implying the parent_id default), but offers no additional syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (extract) and resource (archive), plus scope options (all of it, or selected paths) and the output shape (a new folder named after it). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_archive or prepare_download, which inspect or fetch rather than unpack.

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?

Gives concrete follow-up routing: it returns a job, so poll get_job with wait=true until done, then read result_node_id. It also states the required permission (files:upload). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over inspecting the archive first with list_archive, so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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