update_bank_account

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, such as whether updates are partial or affect related entities. With annotations present, the description should add value, but it does not.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the purpose. It contains no extraneous information and is efficient for its length.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, behavior when fields are omitted, or error cases. Annotations and schema coverage help, but additional context is needed for complete understanding.

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 documentation covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, resulting in 100% coverage. The top-level description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description earns no extra credit.

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 'Bankszámla adatainak módosítása' (Modify bank account details) clearly indicates the action (modify) and resource (bank account). It distinguishes from siblings like create_bank_account, delete_bank_account, get_bank_account, and list_bank_accounts through the verb 'módosítása', but does not explicitly differentiate usage scenarios.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention any sibling tools. The implied usage is for updating existing bank accounts, but explicit usage context is missing.

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