xero_agent_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate Xero proposals' but does not explain what generation entails (e.g., creates a proposal document, runs a process), side effects, authorization needs, or output format. The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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: a single sentence and an Args line. The structure is clear, with the action statement followed by parameter details. It is not verbose, though it could benefit from more structure while remaining 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 one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema (not visible), the description lacks completeness. It does not specify valid proposal kinds, output behavior, or differentiation from sibling tools. The context signals indicate many similar Xero tools, yet no guidance is given, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds an Args line explaining that 'body' is an optional JSON object with an example ('{"kind": "bank_reconciliation"}'), which provides context beyond the schema. However, it does not enumerate valid 'kind' values or specify the full expected structure, leaving gaps.

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 'Generate Xero proposals (reconciliation, AP, payroll, etc.)', clearly indicating the verb and resource. It provides examples of proposal types. However, the presence of sibling tools like 'xero_agent_create_proposal' and 'xero_agent_reject_proposal' creates ambiguity between 'generate' and 'create', lacking differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar siblings like 'xero_agent_create_proposal'. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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