Téléverser un document

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

Beyond the raw annotations, the description reveals the central behavioral constraint: BoondManager downloads the URL itself, no local file is ever read, so the file must be hosted at an accessible URL. It also flags the parsing side effect (triggers Boond AI analysis) and the response shape (created document metadata/ID).

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 organized with short labeled sections (Quand, Plutôt que, Cas d'usage, Returns) and front-loads the key non-obvious behavior in the first sentence. The only mild repetition around local-file reading reinforces a critical constraint without bloating the text.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it cannot do (local files), realistic parameter combinations, and what is returned. Sibling get/delete document tools are different enough that no further reference is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds practical cross-parameter meaning by mapping real cases to parentType values (candidateResume with parsing=true, expensesReport, project/company) and by reinforcing that fileUrl must be publicly reachable. This is helpful, though not essential given 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Attache un document à une entité BoondManager à partir d'une URL', and the title confirms 'Téléverser un document'. The unique verb and remote-URL behavior separate it from document get/delete siblings without relying only on the tool name.

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?

It has an explicit 'Quand' section defining when to use it (publicly accessible URL), a 'Plutôt que' section excluding local-file uploads and explaining the MCP server never reads the disk, and 'Cas d'usage typiques' with concrete parentType/parsing scenarios. This gives an agent clear selection criteria.

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