Registrar una instalacion de SIIGO

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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a useful precondition: 'Debe contener EXCELSIIGO.exe' (must contain EXCELSIIGO.exe). However, it does not disclose what happens if the file is missing, error behavior, or side effects, so transparency is limited beyond the annotation baseline.

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 sentences, with the action verb first, a clear condition, and a key requirement. No filler words or redundant information.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential purpose, trigger condition, and validation requirement. It could mention the outcome or error handling, but for this simple add operation, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%: the 'carpeta' parameter is documented with an example. The description adds the EXCELSIIGO.exe requirement, which is not in the schema, thus enriching parameter semantics and justifying a score above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Agrega manualmente una carpeta de instalacion' (manually adds an installation folder). It specifies the verb, resource, and the manual/auto-discovery distinction, which differentiates it from sibling tools like siigo_list_installations.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'cuando el autodescubrimiento no la encuentra' (when autodiscovery doesn't find it). This clearly implies this is a manual fallback, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, preventing a perfect score.

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