xero_update_manual_journal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and arguments format, omitting side effects, required fields, idempotency, error handling, or any effects of the update operation.

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 and could be considered concise, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is structured with a title and an args line, yet lacks essential detail.

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 tool's complexity (updating a Xero manual journal) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain the purpose and impact of the update. It fails to provide adequate context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal context beyond the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not specify expected keys or structure, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to construct valid input.

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 restates the tool name ('update_manual_journal') without explaining what a manual journal is or what updating entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_create_manual_journal or xero_list_manual_journals, leaving the purpose vague.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or list manual journals). There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or exclusions.

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