xero_intake_journal

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

With no annotations, the description adds the key behavioral trait 'HITL-gated' and specifies the body format as JSON. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as success outcomes, required permissions, or idempotency.

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?

Two short sentences convey the essential information with no waste. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description partially covers the tool's function but leaves the body parameter undefined. Additional details about the JSON structure would improve completeness.

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 schema coverage is 0% for the 'body' parameter. The description only says 'Body is JSON', which provides minimal format guidance. It does not describe the expected structure of the JSON, which is critical for a manual journal proposal.

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 'manual journal into Xero', with the added context of being 'HITL-gated'. This distinguishes it from direct creation tools like xero_create_manual_journal.

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 mentions 'HITL-gated', implying it is for proposing with human approval, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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