xero_submit_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the status change action but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications sent), or what happens if the bill isn't in draft state. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance while still providing essential context about the status change.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values. For a status-change tool in a financial system, more context about implications and outcomes would be beneficial.

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, with the single parameter 'invoiceId' documented as 'The Xero invoice/bill ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 verb ('Change') and resource ('a DRAFT bill') with the specific action of transitioning to 'SUBMITTED status for approval'. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'xero_create_bill' by focusing on status change rather than initial creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'xero_submit_expense_claim'.

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 context by specifying 'DRAFT bill', suggesting it should only be used on bills already in draft state. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to submit vs. create a bill) or mention prerequisites like needing a draft bill ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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