create-bank-transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a deep link is returned and should be displayed to the user, which adds useful context about the output behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: the core function, what's returned, and how to handle the return value. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.

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?

For a write operation with 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and only 17% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and return format but leaves critical gaps: no parameter guidance, no behavioral context about mutations, no error handling, and no differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would struggle 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only the 'date' parameter has a description), so the description must compensate but fails to do so. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving all 6 parameters (4 required) undocumented in terms of their purpose, format, or relationships. This creates significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'bank transaction in Xero', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-bank-transaction' by specifying creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create-invoice' or 'create-payment' beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other transaction methods, or any exclusions. The sibling list includes 'update-bank-transaction' and 'list-bank-transactions', but the description doesn't help an agent choose between them.

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