xero_update_repeating_invoice

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication context, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is mutating, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The lack of behavioral disclosure makes it hard for an agent to assess 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 short but under-specified. Each sentence is generic and does not earn its place; the routing info is tangential and the parameter description adds no value. It is not meaningfully concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema but the description does not mention return values or expected response. Given the complexity of updating a repeating invoice and the presence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete.

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 a single 'arguments' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is tautological and provides no insight into valid keys, structure, or required fields.

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 merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation update_repeating_invoice' without specifying what updating a repeating invoice entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_repeating_invoice or xero_list_repeating_invoices, providing no actionable purpose.

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. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or distinctions from similar operations like creating or listing repeating invoices.

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