Importar Movimiento Contable a SIIGO

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the result is placed in the TEMP folder of the company, and it clarifies the basic model limitations. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral details not present in structured data.

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 front-loaded with the main action, but it wastes words by repeating 'Modelo basico:' three times instead of combining the limitations into one sentence. It's not too long, but the redundancy prevents it from being highly concise.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the overall purpose and some constraints but omits critical operational details such as the expected .xlsx structure, error handling, or what constitutes a successful import. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of an output schema or import template.

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% for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions '.xlsx' but does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither clarifies formats nor adds examples for parameters like facturaBasica or modificaDocumentos.

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 'Movimiento Contable' (accounting movements) to SIIGO from an .xlsx file, and identifies the underlying SIIGO PUSHMOV function. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling push tools like siigo_pushext or siigo_pushgra.

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 by listing limitations of the 'basic model' (doesn't handle multiple payment methods, fixed assets, foreign currency, etc.), which tells the agent when NOT to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or name any sibling tools. The guidance is more exclusionary than directive.

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