Importar Grupos de Activos a SIIGO

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the fact that this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable context by stating that the import result is left in the company's TEMP folder, which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clue about side effects.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and adds one relevant behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 8-parameter schema is fully documented and annotations cover safety, the description provides a clear purpose and notes where results are placed. It lacks details about the expected .xlsx structure or return value format, but the mention of the PUSHGRA function and TEMP path gives sufficient context for a well-documented tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter explained. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb (Importar), resource (Grupos de Activos), and destination (SIIGO). It also names the underlying SIIGO function (PUSHGRA), which distinguishes it from sibling push tools for other entity types.

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 when to use the tool (when importing asset groups from an .xlsx to SIIGO) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, preconditions, or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like siigo_getgra for reading or other push tools, leaving the usage context mostly inferred.

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