xero_api_request

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It adds routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to disclose potential destructive effects, rate limits, or error behavior for malformed arguments.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

As a generic API request tool, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the format of the arguments JSON, valid endpoints, or expected output. An output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should offer more guidance for effective use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description explains that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation. This adds basic meaning beyond the empty schema, but it lacks detail on required keys or allowed values.

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 identifies the tool as the Xero connector api_request and provides routing context, but the purpose is vague and generic. Among many specific Xero tools, it does not clarify that this is a generic fallback for unsupported operations.

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 other Xero-specific tools. The description does not mention it as a fallback or state prerequisites such as valid endpoints or methods.

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