deposer_fichier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully lists accepted file types (m4a/mp3/wav, PDF slides), but omits overwrite behavior, permissions/auth needs, mutation side effects on existing course sources, and error handling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, accepted file types, and destination are immediately clear.

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 no annotations, a bare input schema, and only a one-sentence description, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not cover course identifier format, path handling, file-size/type limits beyond examples, overwrite behavior, or relation to sibling tools, though the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 0%, and neither parameter has a description. The description only indirectly maps 'chemin' to a local file path and 'cours' to course sources, without defining expected formats (course ID vs name, absolute vs relative path) or constraints.

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 ('Copie') and resource/destination ('un fichier local ... dans les sources du cours'), including accepted file types. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as telecharger_fichier, 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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description only implies it is for adding local files to course sources; it never mentions when to choose it over telecharger_fichier or other siblings.

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