finance_xero_close_books

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

The description discloses that it reviews and proposes journals for human approval, and the auto_post_threshold_usd arg reveals that smaller journals are auto-posted. However, despite destructiveHint=true, it does not explicitly warn that the operation is destructive or can post entries, leaving the user to infer this from the parameter.

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 with no fluff: two sentences covering purpose and workflow, followed by three tight parameter descriptions. Well-structured 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the workflow and all parameters sufficiently for an agent to invoke it. Slightly more explicit guidance on when to run (e.g., end of month) would round it out, but it is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section describes all three parameters: message (free-text objective), period (format and default), and auto_post_threshold_usd (auto-post vs. queue behavior). Complete coverage of all parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a month-end close on the connected Xero org') and details the workflow (reviews unreconciled transactions, accruals, prepayments, intercompany eliminations, proposes adjusting journals). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xero_create_manual_journal or xero_book_depreciation.

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 the usage scenario (month-end close) and describes the workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools to avoid. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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