container_archive_put

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

Annotations indicate a mutable but non-destructive operation. The description adds that from_file is read by the server's user with ~ expansion, and notes the arch must be uploaded. It lacks details on overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error handling.

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 with a summary line, usage notes, and parameter list. It is mostly concise, though the 'args:' section could be integrated into the main text to reduce redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main use cases and return type (bool). It mentions the path must exist. Missing details on error scenarios and side effects, but sufficient for a specialized upload tool.

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 four parameters are explicitly documented in the description with type and constraints (e.g., 'exactly one of data/from_file'). The schema has 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates.

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 tool's function: 'Upload a tar archive to a path inside a container'. It specifies the two data sources (in-band bytes or server file) and distinguishes from siblings like container_archive_get.

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 explains the mutually exclusive use of data and from_file, and recommends from_file for large archives due to base64 encoding. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like container_create or image_load.

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