xero_agent_run_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on failure. The description simply repeats the action of 'running' a playbook without any behavioral context.

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 one sentence followed by a structured argument list. It front-loads the core action and lists parameters efficiently without unnecessary words.

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 tool has two parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It provides the critical list of playbook IDs but does not explain what a 'playbook' entails, what output to expect (though output schema exists), or error scenarios. The context is adequate for selecting the tool but not for fully understanding its behavior.

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 0% description coverage, so the description adds some value by listing possible playbook_id values. However, the body parameter is only described as 'Optional JSON object of inputs' without explaining the expected structure or keys. This is adequate but not rich.

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 tool runs a Xero playbook and lists the available playbook_id values. This provides specificity about the resource and action, and the list of playbook IDs helps distinguish it from other similar tools like xero_agent_run_sync.

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 the tool by listing the playbook scenarios (e.g., month_end_close, ar_followup), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many xero sibling tools. Usage is inferred but not fully guided.

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