Finish connecting a Xero org

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, open-world), but the description adds substantive side-effect detail beyond them: it encrypts tokens at rest and syncs the new org, which tells an agent what state changes to expect. It stops short of covering failure modes such as an expired or already-used code.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The operation is front-loaded and the parameter instruction follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter connection-finishing tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and the required input adequately. It could be slightly more complete by noting the dependency on connect_org_start, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining why the full URL is needed — it 'contains code and state' — which clarifies that a bare code will not suffice.

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?

States a specific multi-step operation: exchanging a Xero authorization code for tokens, encrypting them, and syncing the org. This clearly distinguishes it from sync_now or list_orgs. However, it does not explicitly name connect_org_start as the required predecessor, leaving the sibling relationship to inference from the name.

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 phrase 'from Xero's redirect' and 'Pass the full redirect URL' implies this runs after the user approves in Xero, but the description never states the prerequisite (call connect_org_start first) or any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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