brc_update_bank_account

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the preflight mechanism (returns confirmation_required and payload preview), the need for explicit user confirmation, and that passing preflight is not confirmation. This is informative for an update tool.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then details the confirmation workflow. It is concise and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: the confirmation workflow, merge fields, and required parameters. It lacks return value details but mentions the preview, which suffices for agent guidance.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's two-step usage, the payload/updates alias for merged fields, and the companyName format. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it updates a BRC bank account using merged fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_update_customer. However, it focuses heavily on the confirmation workflow rather than the core update action.

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 provides explicit step-by-step guidance on when to call the tool: first call without confirmWrite to get a preview, show a summary to the user, and only retry with confirmWrite=true after explicit confirmation. It also warns against setting confirmWrite true prematurely.

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