Importar Catalogo de centros de costo a SIIGO

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating the result is left in the TEMP folder and identifies the specific SIIGO function. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data) or error behavior, which could be relevant for a mutation tool.

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 long, with the first sentence defining the purpose and the second explaining input and output behavior. No redundant information is present, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and performs a mutating operation. The description covers the main action and output location, but it lacks details on the response format, failure handling, or content requirements for the xlsx file. Given the complexity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including defaults and examples. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning the .xlsx file type, which is already in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 imports a cost center catalog (Catalogo de centros de costo) into SIIGO, explicitly naming the underlying SIIGO function (PUSHCOS). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like siigo_getcos by specifying the import action and the file type (.xlsx).

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 implies the tool is used for importing cost centers from an xlsx file, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., file size limits, prerequisites). No comparison to sibling tools is offered, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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