bexio Projects

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: delete 'permanently deletes the project, cannot be undone', archive 'hides without deleting', and create requires specific fields. It also lists searchable fields and notes that search criteria are AND-combined. No contradictions with annotations.

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 by action, using a compact format with parentheses for details. It is relatively long but every sentence contributes useful information. It could be slightly more concise, but the organization is clear and front-loaded with the overall 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 actions, nested objects, 7 parameters), the description covers most aspects thoroughly: actions, required fields, searchable fields, ordering, and idempotency notes for delete/archive. However, it lacks information about the return value format (e.g., what fields are returned for list/get) and does not mention pagination details beyond limit/offset. This is a gap since no output schema is provided.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds significant meaning: it explains that order_by supports '_desc' suffix, that searchable fields include name/contact_id/etc., that search criteria are AND-combined, and that payload required fields for create are name, pr_state_id, etc. It also clarifies special cases like document_nr usage. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool manages projects via the bexio 2.0 API and lists all possible actions (list, search, get, create, update, delete, archive, unarchive, list_statuses, list_types). It also describes what a project consists of (name, status, type, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bexio_tasks or bexio_timesheets by focusing exclusively on project entities.

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 explicit guidance for each action, including required parameters (e.g., id for get/update/delete/archive/unarchive, payload for create). It explains when to use 'archive' vs 'delete' (hides vs permanently deletes). However, it does not compare this tool to other bexio tools or state when not to use it, which would improve the score.

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