container_archive_put

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

Description discloses that the archive is extracted at 'path', that 'from_file' is read by the server user with '~' expansion, and notes that the path must already exist. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the upload operation. No contradictions; description adds relevant behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with primary purpose, and structured with bullet-like args list. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy. Slightly verbose for an MCP tool but remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no nesting, output schema present), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter details, behavioral notes, and return type. No missing information for typical usage.

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 described with their meaning, constraints (mutual exclusivity of data/from_file, path existence requirement), and practical guidance (base64 encoding caveat). This adds significant value since the input schema has 0% description coverage.

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 the action ('upload a tar archive') and target ('path inside a container'), specifies two data sources, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'container_archive_get' as its inverse. Verb+resource is specific and 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?

Description advises to pass exactly one of 'data' or 'from_file', explains trade-offs (base64 encoding for in-band bytes vs. streaming for large archives), and references the inverse operation for context. It provides clear usage guidance without explicit 'when not to use' but covers key decision points.

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