create_bank_account

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) partly cover safety but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., immediate persistence), return behavior, or idempotency implications. The openWorldHint suggests external state changes remain unspecified.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no filler, and every word is necessary for the core purpose. The language matches the schema locale.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the creation outcome (e.g., what the response contains), link to related entities (e.g., partners), or provide context on the workflow. The agent is left with gaps.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description itself adds no parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, though the description misses the opportunity to clarify parameter purpose or constraints.

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 'Új bankszámla hozzáadása' clearly states the verb (add) and resource (bank account). The tool name and sibling tools (e.g., update_bank_account, delete_bank_account) distinguish it as the creation tool, providing unambiguous purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_bank_account). It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios to avoid. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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