Set an org's payroll amount/date

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the override is held in memory only, cleared on restart, and nothing is sent to Xero. That persistence scope and absence of external side effects are exactly what an agent needs, though it omits what happens if the org is not found or whether at least one field must be supplied.

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 compact sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the ephemerality caveat immediately follows it.

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?

No output schema and only three parameters, with annotations carrying the mutation/safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient. It misses edge-case behavior (org not found, whether amount and date are independently optional) but covers the two things an agent would most likely get wrong: persistence and Xero side effects.

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 only 33% — 'org' is documented but 'amount' and 'next_payroll_date' have no schema descriptions. The description compensates partially by framing both as optional ('and/or') overrides of estimates, but gives no currency/units for amount or any semantics beyond the regex pattern for the date. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 verb ('Overrides'), the exact resources modified (estimated payroll amount and/or next payroll date), and the scope ('for one org'). This is distinguishable from siblings like payroll_risk or practice_dashboard without opening any schema.

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 word 'Overrides' and 'estimated' imply the use case (correcting an estimate the system computed), but the description never states when to reach for this versus payroll_risk or other payroll siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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