create-manual-journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation tool (implying mutation), requires account codes from another source, and enforces accounting rules (balance and line count). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists requirements in a single sentence. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites from rules). Overall, it's concise with no wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by outlining creation logic and constraints. However, for a mutation tool with 7 parameters, it lacks details on authentication, side effects, or what happens post-creation (e.g., success response). It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'account codes' and 'basic accounting account types pairing', but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create a manual journal in Xero') and specifies the resource, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-manual-journal' or 'list-manual-journals'. It provides additional context about retrieving account codes and journal line requirements, which helps clarify the purpose beyond just the verb.

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 implies usage by mentioning prerequisites ('Retrieve a list of account codes') and constraints ('must contain at least two individual journal lines', 'credit and debit balanced'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-manual-journal' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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