xero_create_repeating_invoice

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states routing info (through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose what the operation does (creates a recurring invoice), side effects, permissions needed, or any limitations. The behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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 short and well-structured: operation name, routing context, then args section. However, it is somewhat redundant by repeating the operation name. Overall, it conveys necessary information concisely.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is highly incomplete for a create operation. It does not explain what a repeating invoice is, what required fields go into the arguments JSON, or any constraints (e.g., customer must exist). The tool's complexity is not addressed.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (type string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what goes into that JSON, but it does not. The description is barely more helpful than the schema alone.

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 creates a repeating invoice in Xero ('Xero connector operation create_repeating_invoice'), but it does not differentiate from similar tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_update_repeating_invoice. The verb and resource are clear, but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) which are not usage guidelines. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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