xero_intake_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HITL-gated nature, a key behavioral trait, but does not explain what happens after proposal (e.g., pending state, approval process) or side effects.

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, but sacrifices details that are necessary for correct usage. While front-loaded with key info, it could be more informative without significant length increase.

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 simple schema and output schema existing, the description should explain the HITL flow and hint at the output. It fails to describe the return value or the proposal lifecycle, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full tool 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 only parameter 'body' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds that it should be JSON but does not specify the expected structure or required fields for an AP bill, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 verb 'Propose' and the resource 'AP bill', indicating a proposal action for an accounts payable bill. It also specifies the tool is HITL-gated, distinguishing it from direct creation tools like xero_create_bill.

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 usage for proposing bills that require human approval (HITL-gated), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like xero_create_bill or xero_intake_invoice, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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