Upload a base64-encoded file (up to 10 MB) to the “Mes documents” space in a French school ENT, optionally choosing a destination folder.
Dépose un fichier (base64, 10 Mo maximum) dans « Mes documents ».
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier_id | No | Dossier de destination (absent = racine de « Mes documents »). | |
| nom_fichier | Yes | ||
| contenu_base64 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully adds the base64 encoding requirement and a 10 MB maximum size limit, which are not in the annotations. It does not explain duplicate/overwrite behavior, but the annotation bar is lower and the added constraints are valuable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste: verb, resource, encoding constraint, size limit, and destination are all packed efficiently.
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?
For a simple three-parameter upload tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description provides the key missing constraints (base64, 10 MB max, destination). The only notable gap is the lack of naming conventions or duplicate-handling behavior for nom_fichier.
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 only 33% (only dossier_id is documented). The description adds meaning for contenu_base64 by specifying base64 encoding and a 10 MB maximum, partially compensating. However, nom_fichier receives no explanation, and dossier_id semantics are already in the schema.
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 states a specific verb ("Dépose") and resource ("un fichier") plus the destination ("dans « Mes documents »"), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like documents_lister or documents_telecharger, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer that this is the upload action from the verb alone, with no routing context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.