xero_attach_file_to_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool attaches files, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the attachment is reversible, file size limits, supported MIME types beyond PDF/image, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose efficiently without redundancy.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. For attaching files to financial records, more context on permissions, limitations, or side effects would be needed for adequate completeness.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying file types (PDF, image) for 'filePath', which is already covered by the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Attach a file') and target resource ('to an existing Xero receipt'), specifying file types (PDF, image). It distinguishes from generic 'xero_attach_file' by specifying receipt attachment, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'xero_attach_file_to_expense' or 'xero_attach_file_to_invoice' beyond the resource name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xero_attach_file_to_expense' or 'xero_attach_file_to_invoice'. The description mentions 'existing Xero receipt' which implies the receipt must already exist, but doesn't state prerequisites like receipt creation or availability. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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