Importar Cuentas Contables a SIIGO

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds one relevant behavior: 'El resultado de la importacion queda en la carpeta TEMP de la empresa correspondiente.' This clarifies output location but does not elaborate on potential overwrites, side effects, or prerequisites. It provides some additional context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous details. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward import tool.

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 destructive operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but not comprehensive. It explains the final output location but omits details about the import process, error handling, or prerequisite conditions (e.g., file format requirements). However, the schema covers parameters well, making the description minimally sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that an xlsx file is imported; examples in the schema cover most semantics. Thus the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Importar Cuentas Contables a SIIGO' and references the specific SIIGO function PUSHCTA. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the xlsx file and the target domain (chart of accounts), which aligns with the tool name and sibling set.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use siigo_pushmov vs siigo_pushcta), nor does it mention scenarios that would favor this tool. The only implied context is importing chart-of-accounts data, which is weak guidance.

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