xero_create_credit_note

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent; the description adds useful context beyond that: routing is restricted to an exact project/account authority, an `effect` parameter is claimed and verified by Spring, `approval_ref` is needed when resuming a write, and `idempotency_key` establishes a stable business-action identity. This gives agents important behavioral context about governance and approval.

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 reasonably compact and well-structured: a one-line operation identifier, a routing statement, then a clean parameter list. No wordy filler, though the opening sentence does duplicate the tool name and could be replaced with actual domain meaning.

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 write operation with 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no required fields, the description leaves critical gaps: the content/structure of `arguments` is unspecified, there is no example or field list, and there is no warning about the destructive nature flagged by annotations. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but core invocation semantics are incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It does give brief explanations for `project_id`, `project_ref`, `connector_account_ref`, `idempotency_key`, `effect`, and `approval_ref`, but the core `arguments` parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which restates the type without explaining what a credit-note payload should contain. This leaves the most important invocation detail undefined.

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 opens by restating the tool name and platform operation ('Xero connector operation `create_credit_note`'), which is essentially a tautology. It never states that the tool creates a credit note in Xero, what a credit note represents, or how this differs from sibling operations like `xero_update_credit_note` or `xero_list_credit_notes`.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `xero_create_invoice`, `xero_create_bill`, or `xero_update_credit_note`. The only contextual statement is about routing through governed connector authority, which is a constraint, not a usage criterion.

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