xero_create_invoice

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. While it indicates this is a creation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, whether the invoice is saved as draft or sent immediately, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose and usage context without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., invoice status, return values, error conditions), nor does it provide important behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or system constraints that would be crucial for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 specific action ('Create a sales invoice') and resource ('in Xero'), with explicit context ('accounts receivable') and usage scenario ('invoices you send to customers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xero_create_bill or xero_create_expense by focusing on customer-facing sales invoices.

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 ('for invoices you send to customers'), which implicitly distinguishes it from tools for bills or expense claims. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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