Delete Bank Account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the concrete return payload ({ deleted: true }), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it omits any warning about irreversibility or what happens to linked transfers/customers.

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 tightly written components: a one-line action statement and a compact Args/Returns block. Nothing is wasted, and the action is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter deletion, the description covers the argument and return value, which is adequate. However, it does not clarify whether deleting a nonexistent account errors or silently succeeds (despite the idempotentHint annotation), nor does it mention permission requirements for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents bank_account_id. The description's 'the account id' restates the same information without adding format, origin, or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource (remove a PIX/TED bank account) and names the expected outcome. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling ashar_delete_customer_bank_account, leaving ambiguity about which account type is targeted.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ashar_delete_customer_bank_account or ashar_list_bank_accounts. The only usage signal is the verb 'remove', which is implied rather than explained.

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