Propose a file destination for any content by applying learned organization rules, returning a recommendation for the harness to write.
Propose une destination pour un contenu (mode conseil : Enma propose, le harnais écrit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projet | No | ||
| fichier | No | ||
| reponse | No | ||
| sessionID | No | ||
| type_contenu | No | ||
| destination_ponctuelle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does convey the key trait that the tool only proposes while the harness writes ('Enma propose, le harnais écrit'). It does not mention response format, side effects, or any required context, leaving meaningful behavioral ambiguity.
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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the main action and a parenthetical for the mode, with no filler. It is concise, though the parenthetical is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.
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 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explicit usage conditions, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. It captures the overall purpose and advisory nature but omits parameter roles, expected output, and integration context.
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 schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters, and the description does not explain projet, fichier, reponse, sessionID, type_contenu, or destination_ponctuelle. It only references 'contenu' and 'destination' generically, so it adds almost no parameter-level 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Propose') and a resource ('une destination pour un contenu'), and the parenthetical advisory-mode note helps distinguish it from siblings that manage rules. It is clear at a high level what the tool does, though 'destination' and 'contenu' are not precisely defined.
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 phrase 'mode conseil : Enma propose, le harnais écrit' implies the tool is for advisory proposals rather than direct execution. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.