finance_xero_consolidation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and authentication scope, but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur.

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, consisting of three sentences plus a bulleted args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

The tool is a generic action runner with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, but the description fails to explain the action's purpose, expected inputs, or return value. It is incomplete given the complexity and number of sibling tools.

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 description provides minimal parameter info: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on valid inputs, constraints, or examples. Given schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but remains thin.

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 'Run the finance domain agent action xero_consolidation', which is nearly tautological. It does not explain what 'consolidation' entails or what the tool accomplishes, leaving its purpose vague and indistinguishable from many sibling xero tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like finance_xero_ap_intake_to_pay or xero_create_invoice. The agent lacks criteria for appropriate selection.

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