xero_create_expense_claim

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 the tool 'creates a receipt and submits it as an expense claim,' which implies a write operation, but fails to specify required permissions, whether the submission is immediate or pending, error handling, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. The deprecation note adds some context, but overall, the description is insufficient 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. The deprecation warning is efficiently appended. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the deprecation note for clarity. Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information: behavioral details like permissions or submission flow, output expectations, and explicit differentiation from sibling tools. The deprecation warning adds some context, but for a tool that creates and submits expense claims, more guidance is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not captured in the schema. However, it implies the tool handles receipt creation and submission, which contextualizes the parameters' role, but this is minimal added value. 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 tool's purpose: 'Create an expense claim for reimbursement - creates a receipt and submits it as an expense claim.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('expense claim'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'xero_create_expense' or 'xero_create_receipt' by indicating it combines receipt creation and submission. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'xero_submit_expense_claim', which is a limitation.

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 for creating and submitting expense claims, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xero_create_expense' or 'xero_submit_expense_claim'. The deprecation warning ('deprecated Feb 2026') offers some temporal context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for use.

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