container_archive_put

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

Description adds meaningful transparent behavior beyond annotations: inversion relationship, base64 encoding of in-band bytes, server-user reading of from_file, and ~ expansion. It omits overwrite semantics on extraction but disclosures are strong.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, compact and organized into a lead paragraph followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence carries information; only a small redundancy between the prose and the Args list.

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?

Adequate for the tool's complexity: covers purpose, extraction at path, input options, and return type bool. Minor gaps such as overwrite at destination and effects of partial extraction remain but are not critical.

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 the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of path, data, and from_file and their mutual exclusivity. only id_or_name lacks explanation, but it is inferable from container context.

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 and resource ('Upload a tar archive to a path inside a container'), names the inverse operation (container_archive_get), and makes the extraction semantics clear. The tool is immediately distinguishable from all siblings.

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 names the inverse tool and the mutually exclusive data vs from_file options, and recommends from_file for large archives due to MCP base64 encoding. The requirement that path must already exist is also stated.

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