xero_create_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about governance routing, effect verification by Spring, and the need for an approval_ref when resuming writes. It does not contradict the annotations, though it also does not elaborade on the destructive nature beyond what the annotation already signals.

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 compact, avoids filler, and leads with the tool identity before moving to a labeled arg list. The routing sentence and parameter explanations earn their place, though the list partially duplicates schema property names. Overall, it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 7-parameter connector operation with no schema description coverage, the description does not fully specify how to construct the arguments payload, which parameters are practically required, or what 'create_project' semantically does in Xero. The output schema exists, which helps with return values, but the input side remains incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, and it does provide brief definitions for each parameter such as 'project_id: Authenticated Project UUID' and 'effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it.' However, the central 'arguments' parameter is only described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is essentially a restatement of its name and leaves the agent without knowledge of what payload to construct. 'project_ref: Exact project correlation reference' is similarly vague.

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 as 'Xero connector operation `create_project` (platform tool `xero.create_project`)' without explaining what creating a project actually does. It does not describe the resource being created, the effect of the operation, or how it differs from other Xero create tools. The name alone carries the purpose, but the description adds no meaningful expansion.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_create_invoice or xero_create_contact. The only context sentence about routing through a governed connector authority says nothing about invocation conditions or situations where this tool is the right choice. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or sibling differentiation.

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