container_archive_put

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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral details: from_file is read by server's user, ~ expansion, streaming to daemon, base64 encoding of in-band data, and the path must already exist. It does not mention overwrite semantics or error cases, but overall is transparent.

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: a concise summary, then additional context, then a clear args block. Each sentence adds value, and the formatting aids readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's core behavior, parameter constraints, and return type, and references the inverse operation. It lacks explicit explanation of error handling when both/neither of data/from_file is provided, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the output schema and annotations.

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?

The 'args' section explains every parameter beyond the schema, describing id_or_name as container id/name, path as requiring existence, data as tar bytes, and from_file as a server host path. It also clarifies the 'exactly one' constraint, fully compensating for the 0% schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload a tar archive to a path inside a container' with specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself as the 'Inverse of container_archive_get', differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use each input mode ('preferred for large archives' for from_file) and enforces the mutual exclusivity of data/from_file. It implicitly contrasts with container_archive_get but does not explicitly list exclusion scenarios or alternatives.

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