xero_create_bill

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 states this is a creation tool ('Create a bill'), which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the bill is saved as draft or submitted, error handling, or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and clear purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a bill ID, saves as draft), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral aspects are severely lacking.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or business rules. This meets the baseline of 3 when 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 ('Create a bill') and the resource ('in Xero'), with the parenthetical 'accounts payable' providing helpful context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like xero_create_invoice or xero_create_expense by specifying it's for 'invoices you'll pay later', though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 some usage context with 'use for invoices you'll pay later', which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like xero_create_invoice for sales invoices or xero_create_expense for immediate payments, leaving room for confusion.

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