Importar Documentos ExtraContables a SIIGO

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context by stating that the import result is left in the TEMP folder of the corresponding company, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on failure modes or reversibility, so with annotations the score is a solid 3.

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: first states the function and the input file, second states the output location. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains zero redundant words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 8 parameters, full schema descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description adds the key behavioral fact (result location in TEMP). It does not repeat return values (none defined) and provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slight deduction because it does not mention error handling or relationship to logged-in credentials, but overall complete given the structured fields.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning the .xlsx input file, which aligns with the existing schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Importar') and resource ('Documentos ExtraContables a SIIGO'), explicitly names the SIIGO PUSHEXT function, and distinguishes it from sibling push tools (e.g., siigo_pushmov, siigo_pushter). This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 usage for importing extra-accounting documents via an .xlsx file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like siigo_pushmov. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided beyond the function name, so usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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