Ejecutar una funcion de ExcelSIIGO

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

The description discloses that export functions generate an .xlsx and return its first rows, while PUSH* functions import and require confirmation. It also warns that a malformed parameter causes the CLI to return code 081 and still exit with code 0, making errors look like successes. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructiveness.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey the core action, behavior differences, and a critical error-handling tip. The warning about the 081 code is front-loaded and every clause carries meaning, so it earns a high score.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, the difference between export and import functions, and the critical error mode. It doesn't detail the exact return structure, but it mentions that export functions return the first rows, which is the key behavior. The reference to describe_function fills the gap for parameter specifics.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by warning about malformed parameters and referencing siigo_describe_function for parameter formats, which helps with the nested 'params' object. It also highlights that confirmarEscritura is mandatory for PUSH*, reinforcing the schema.

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 executes any of the 47 SIIGO Pyme functions by name, specifying export vs import behaviors. It distinguishes from siblings like siigo_describe_function (which describes functions) and siigo_read_xlsx (which reads files). The verb 'Ejecuta' and resource 'funciones de SIIGO Pyme' make the purpose specific.

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?

It tells the user to call siigo_describe_function first to understand the required parameters, which is an explicit usage prerequisite. It also clarifies that PUSH* functions require confirmarEscritura=true, guiding correct operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use sibling tools instead (e.g., siigo_list_functions), so it's clear but not fully exclusionary.

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