Copy files into a container

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence — it overwrites whatever exists at the destination — plus a confirmation requirement before acting. That is real added value beyond the hint flags. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. whether the container must be running) or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the destructive warning immediately after. Nothing needs to be trimmed or moved.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete but omits operational prerequisites, such as whether the target container must be running or whether folders are copied recursively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('from' as an absolute local path, 'to' as the container path, 'container' as a name or id). The description adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (copy) plus resource (local file or folder) and destination (a container's path), which cleanly separates it from the reverse-direction sibling copy_from_container. 'Into' makes the direction unambiguous without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 gives a caution ('confirm with the person first') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives, such as exec_in_container for in-place writes or copy_from_container for the reverse operation. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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