borderou_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'creates transactions' and 'runs automatic matching', implying significant mutation and potential side effects, but doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it can create duplicate transactions if called twice with the same file, what happens on partial parse failures, or whether provider validation is required first. For a mutation-heavy tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two focused sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and formats; the second conveys the multi-step behavior (parse, create, match). Well front-loaded and efficient.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the operation's effect well but doesn't address critical operational aspects: idempotency/duplicate risk for repeated uploads of the same file, what response/callback the caller receives (no output schema to clarify this), and whether provider must pre-exist via borderou_providers. These gaps matter for correct usage of a file-import mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are all documented in the schema. The description adds value by framing sourceType with its two enum meanings ('borderou' for payment lists, 'bank_statement' for bank exports) and clarifies the matching behavior against existing invoices. The description supplements the schema moderately beyond its baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Upload a bank statement or borderou file') and explicitly lists the supported file formats (CSV, XLSX, XLS). It distinguishes this from related tools like borderou_transactions and borderou_transactions_save by explaining this is the upload/import entry point for reconciliation.

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 explains what happens after upload (parses file, creates transactions, runs matching against invoices), giving clear context on the tool's lifecycle role. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this vs alternatives like import_upload, borderou_transactions_save, or borderou_transactions_rematch, which are sibling tools with overlapping concerns.

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