update-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, which is useful context about the output. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), permission requirements, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on accounting records).

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. The first sentence states the purpose, and the next two explain the return value and how to handle it. There's no unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, low schema description coverage (17%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs. full updates), doesn't warn about destructive changes (like line item removal), and provides minimal guidance on usage. The deep link information is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps.

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 low at 17%, with only the 'lineItems' parameter having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, the schema itself is well-structured with clear properties, enums, and required fields, providing a baseline understanding despite the lack of descriptive text.

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 ('Update a bank transaction in Xero') and resource ('bank transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update-contact' or 'update-invoice' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what fields can be updated beyond the schema.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing transaction ID), compare it to 'create-bank-transaction' or 'list-bank-transactions', or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate versus creating new transactions.

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