xero_update_quote

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description notes the routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but omits critical details such as whether the update is destructive, what fields can be changed, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of the tool's impact.

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—two sentences plus an Args line—with no filler. It front-loads the tool's identity and purpose. While concise, it sacrifices substance; however, no unnecessary sentences are present.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details. It fails to explain the return value or confirm the update's effect. The agent would need external documentation to use this tool effectively.

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 has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it expects a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which clarifies the format but does not explain what valid arguments are, required keys, or constraints. The agent must guess the structure of the JSON, making correct invocation unlikely without external knowledge.

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 identifies the tool as an 'update_quote' operation for Xero, clearly specifying the resource (quote) and action (update). The name itself is descriptive, and the description adds the platform tool name. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like xero_create_quote or xero_list_quotes, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool appropriate (e.g., 'use to modify an existing quote, not to create a new one'). Agents must infer usage solely from the name.

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