xero_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only identifies the tool as an 'update' operation, implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, error handling, idempotency, or what changes are made. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (three sentences) but includes routing information that may distract from the core purpose. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to prioritize actionable details for the agent.

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, the description omits crucial context: what fields can be updated, whether the project must exist, and what the output contains. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 description clarifies that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, but with 0% schema description coverage, it should explain the expected JSON structure (e.g., required fields like projectId). It adds minimal meaning over the schema, offering no examples or field constraints.

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 states it updates a project via the Xero connector, using the verb 'update_project' which clearly indicates the action. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like xero_create_project or xero_get_project, and lacks specificity on what aspects of the project can be updated.

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 such as xero_create_project or xero_list_projects. Prerequisites, like an existing project ID, are not mentioned. The routing information does not serve as usage guidance.

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