Attach an invoice photo, PDF, or XML to an existing accounts payable entry in Sienge, with files up to 70 MB supported.
Anexa um arquivo (foto da nota, PDF, XML) a um título já lançado. Limite do Sienge: 70 MB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| descricao | No | Padrão: nome do arquivo | |
| titulo_id | Yes | ||
| caminho_arquivo | Yes | Caminho completo do arquivo na máquina |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 70 MB limit and that the title must already be launched, but it omits side effects, permission requirements, whether existing files are replaced, and what the tool returns after success or failure.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The action comes first, followed by the key size limit, with no filler or redundant explanations.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action, file types, a prerequisite, and a hard limit. However, because no annotations exist, success/failure behavior and error conditions are left unstated, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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 67%, with 'titulo_id' lacking a description. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the target must be an already-launched title, which helps with 'titulo_id', and it lists allowed file types and the size limit, adding context for 'caminho_arquivo'. It does not go beyond the schema for 'descricao', but the added context keeps this at baseline 3.
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 and resource: it attaches a file to an already-launched title and enumerates accepted file types (photo of note, PDF, XML). The phrase 'já lançado' distinguishes it from title-creation siblings, giving the agent a clear idea of its purpose.
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 description provides implicit usage context: the tool is for files attached to already-launched titles, and it includes a 70 MB size limit. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'arquivar_nota', nor does it give conditions where the tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.