xero_intake_invoice

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Propose' (write action) and 'HITL-gated' (requires human in loop), but lacks details on reversibility, authorization needs, post-proposal workflow, or what happens upon success/failure.

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 extremely short (two clauses) and front-loads the action. While concise, it omits critical information (e.g., JSON structure, intended use vs alternative tools), making it under-specified rather than efficiently brief.

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 low complexity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description still fails to convey enough context. Missing: expected JSON schema, what 'propose' means process-wise, and how the tool differs from xero_create_invoice.

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% with one 'body' parameter of type string. The description adds that 'Body is JSON', clarifying the format. However, it fails to specify the required JSON structure (e.g., invoice fields, required keys), leaving the agent underspecified.

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 it proposes an AR invoice into Xero and mentions 'HITL-gated', distinguishing it from xero_create_invoice (direct creation). The verb 'Propose' and acronym 'AR' make the specific resource and action clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_invoice. The 'HITL-gated' hint suggests it's for proposals requiring human approval, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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