xero_update_receipt

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing and authentication scopes, which are generic. There is no information about side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what the update actually does to the receipt.

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 only three sentences, but it lacks substantive content. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative; it fails to convey essential details in a compact manner.

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 mentioned in context signals, the description does not refer to it or explain what the tool returns. It also omits any context about the receipt object, field restrictions, or how to identify which receipt to update.

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 no meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fails to compensate by listing expected keys or structure.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('update_receipt') without specifying what a receipt is in Xero context or what updating it entails. It lacks a clear verb+resource explanation that distinguishes it from create or list operations.

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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives like xero_create_receipt or xero_list_receipts. There is no mention of prerequisites, required state, or when an update is appropriate.

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