xero_invoices_update_status

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies invoice status (submit, authorise, void), which implies side effects. However, it does not specify reversibility, permissions, or preconditions beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core action.

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 exists, and the description does not explain return values or success indicators. For a simple status update, this is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding expected outcomes.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds the list of status options, but the schema already includes an enum. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('update the status') and the resource ('existing invoice'), and lists the specific status changes (submit, authorise, void). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or get invoices.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The context is implied but not stated.

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