put_container_archive

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that data is base64-encoded bytes and that the tool returns a boolean. It discloses the streaming inefficiency of carrying bytes through MCP protocol, which is useful context 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 three sentences plus a compact args section. It front-loads the purpose and alternative, then lists parameters concisely. No unnecessary words.

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 that annotations exist and output schema is present, the description covers the core purpose, alternative usage, and basic parameters. It lacks details on error handling or size limits, but for a simple upload tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions for each parameter (id_or_name, path, data) but does not add significant detail beyond the names. For example, it doesn't specify supported path formats or archive types. Baseline is lowered due to low coverage, but it provides minimal extra 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?

Description clearly states 'Upload a tar archive to a path inside a container.' It includes the verb 'Upload', the resource 'tar archive', and context 'inside a container'. It distinguishes from sibling put_container_archive_from_file by noting the alternative is preferred for tarballs on the host.

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?

Explicitly suggests using put_container_archive_from_file when the tarball is already on the server host, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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