finance_xero_consolidation

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the call routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and executes under JWT/tenant/company scoping. However, it does not disclose what the consolidation action does to data, what side effects it may produce, or why the destructiveHint annotation is present; the annotations carry most of the safety burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core 'Run...' statement, followed by a compact args list. It avoids fluff and each sentence contributes useful invocation context.

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 destructive, open-world domain-agent action, the description is incomplete: it lacks a plain-language explanation of what consolidation does, what inputs the action expects beyond generic free text/JSON, and what effects or outputs to expect. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for missing action-level semantics.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It identifies `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema types. Still, it does not specify what keys or structures the JSON should contain or how the two parameters interact.

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 verb ('Run') and a resource (the `xero_consolidation` domain-agent action), and it clarifies that this is a dispatcher-routed action rather than a direct Xero API call. However, it never explains what 'xero_consolidation' actually does, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the tool name alone.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling finance/xero actions, nor when to avoid it. The scope note ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') is contextual but does not help an agent decide between this and alternatives like `dispatch_domain_agent` or other `finance_xero_*` tools.

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