ashar_delete_customer_bank_accountRemove a customer's bank account by providing the customer ID and bank account ID.
Remove a customer's bank account.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
bank_account_id (string): the bank account id
Returns 204 No Content on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id | |
| bank_account_id | Yes | Bank account id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: 'Returns 204 No Content on success.' It does not address reversibility, error conditions, or whether the account is merely unlinked, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the whole text is short. However, the Args section duplicates information already fully documented in the schema, which is low-value filler rather than earned content.
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 two-parameter delete with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose plus the success status code, which is what an agent needs since there is no output schema. Only the ambiguity versus sibling delete tools is unaddressed.
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 Args block merely restates the schema's field descriptions ('Customer id', 'Bank account id') verbatim in spirit. No additional format, provenance, or validation meaning is added, so the 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 definition states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a customer's bank account'), which is distinguishable from most siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named ashar_delete_bank_account or ashar_delete_customer_wallet, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the 'customer' qualifier.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related ashar_delete_bank_account or ashar_delete_customer_wallet, nor any mention of unlink-vs-delete semantics or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.