borderou_upload

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

Annotations only declare non-readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds materially more by stating the tool parses the file, creates transactions, and runs automatic invoice matching. It does not address duplicate/re-upload behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose and outcome are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second and third add useful format/provider/behavior detail. The long provider enumeration is justified by parameter guidance, though slightly dense.

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 non-idempotent, side-effecting import tool with no output schema, the description covers formats, provider selection, and the create-and-match side effects. It stops short of describing what happens on partial parse failures or how re-uploads are handled.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by enumerating the recognized bank providers and noting the generic_bank fallback, which the provider parameter's schema text only gestures at via 'borderou_providers'.

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 gives a specific verb (upload), concrete resource types (borderou / bank statement files) and the downstream outcome (transaction import and reconciliation). It never names the generic import_upload sibling, so an agent cannot fully tell which import path to choose without inspecting both.

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 supplies clear context that this is the route for CSV/XLSX/XLS/PDF statement imports and tells the agent to pick the matching provider or generic_bank for PDFs. However it offers no exclusions or explicit comparison against the sibling import_upload / import_preview flow, so 'when not to use this' is left implied.

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