update-credit-note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the tool only works on draft credit notes, warns that missing line items will be removed, advises not to modify unspecified line items, and describes the return value (a deep link to view in Xero). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 sized and front-loaded with key information (purpose and constraints). Sentences are efficient, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating line item warnings from the schema description), slightly reducing conciseness.

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 the complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, constraints, and return behavior but lacks details on parameter specifics beyond line items, error cases, or full output explanation, leaving room for improvement.

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 20%, but the description adds some meaning by explaining the 'lineItems' parameter behavior (all must be provided, omissions cause removal). It doesn't cover other parameters like 'creditNoteId', 'reference', 'date', or 'contactId', so it partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline for moderate 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 ('Update a credit note in Xero') and specifies the resource ('credit note'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-credit-note' or other update tools, though the context of 'update' implies modification versus creation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Only works on draft credit notes.' It also implies usage by specifying constraints like requiring all line items, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'create-credit-note' for new ones).

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