telecharger_fichier

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it copies to `destination` but never states whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the destination directory must exist, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure – all material for a filesystem write.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the artifact set. Nothing wasted, though the naming/semantic ambiguity slightly reduces its utility.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a three-parameter copy operation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin – notably it omits what `cours` does and any destination/overwrite semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains what values `nom` can take via the artifact list and names `destination`, but leaves `cours` completely undefined and never clarifies whether `destination` is a directory, full path, or filename.

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 gives a specific verb ('Copie') and resource ('artefact local') and even enumerates the concrete artifacts involved (fiche.md, questions.json, cards.json, transcript.md, plan.json, export.apkg), so an agent knows exactly what the tool moves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like deposer_fichier or exporter_anki, and the name ('telecharger') is looser than the actual copy semantics described.

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 guidance about when to use this instead of deposer_fichier, exporter_anki, or the other artifact-producing tools. The agent must infer the use case purely from the verb and the file list.

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