bexio Items

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (delete permanent) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that delete cannot be undone, and explains search behavior (AND-combined, default 'like' operator). It does not explicitly state that list/get are read-only, but that is implied by the action names. The openWorldHint is not contradicted.

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 well-structured: starts with overall purpose, then lists actions in parentheses with key details. It is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy and could be more concise by removing some redundant parameter details that are already in the schema.

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 (6 actions, 7 parameters, nested payload), the description covers all actions, mandatory fields, and key constraints. It does not mention pagination defaults (e.g., limit default 500) or scope requirements for stock (is_stock needs stock_edit scope), which are in the schema but not in the description. No output schema, so return value explanation is not expected.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that order_by only accepts 'id' or 'intern_name' (with optional '_desc' suffix), which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that search_criteria uses AND logic and default 'like' operator, which is partially in the schema but reinforced.

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 manages items/products (articles) and lists all six actions (list, search, get, create, update, delete) with specific detail. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool for item CRUD; no overlap with bexio_stock or others.

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?

Each action is explained with when to use it (e.g., list uses limit/offset/order_by, search requires search_criteria with AND logic, create needs intern_name and article_type_id for product/service). However, no explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., bexio_stock) is provided, leaving some ambiguity about alternative tools.

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