xero_agent_approve_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action and a vague outcome ('so it can execute'), failing to disclose prerequisites, side effects, or what the tool actually does beyond the name. With an output schema, agents might infer return values, but the description does not leverage this.

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 very short (one sentence, 8 words). While concise, it lacks necessary details and is arguably under-specified. It could be expanded to include parameter hints or behavioral notes without losing clarity.

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 tool that performs an approval action with two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body parameter, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema may help but does not excuse the lack of context in the description.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of the two parameters. 'proposal_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'body' (default '{}') is left entirely undocumented, leaving agents to guess its format and purpose.

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 the action (approve) and the resource (Xero proposal) and the consequence ('so it can execute'). It distinguishes from its sibling 'xero_agent_reject_proposal' by indicating approval specifically.

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 when to use this tool (when a proposal needs approval). The presence of a sibling reject tool provides context for when not to use it, but the description itself does not explicitly state when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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