Delete a bank statement by providing its record ID and accounting year to remove unwanted entries from the system.
Delete a bank statement by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bank statement record ID | |
| year | Yes | Accounting year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying side effects. It clearly states the destructive action ('Delete') and what is affected ('bank statement'), but it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or any consequences beyond the deletion itself.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.
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 low-complexity delete operation with a fully described two-parameter schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks deeper context like return behavior or permanent effects, but those are largely implied by the 'Delete' verb and are not essential for a basic call.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully explains both parameters. The description simply repeats 'by ID and year' without adding new meaning, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('bank statement'), and the key identifiers ('ID and year'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as m3_create_bank_document and m3_bank_documents.
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 gives clear context: use this tool to delete a bank statement identified by ID and year. It does not enumerate exclusions or sibling alternatives, but for a focused delete operation the intended usage is readily apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.