Delete Bank Account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the referential-integrity failure condition when transactions exist. It does not state whether the delete is permanent/soft, but the destructive annotation carries that.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the failure condition immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key operational constraint. The only untold detail is whether the deletion is reversible or a soft delete, which is minor given the destructiveHint.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Bank account ID', required, positive integer). The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a company bank account'), which is unambiguous against the CRUD siblings list_bank_accounts, get_bank_account, create_bank_account and update_bank_account. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 supplies one real precondition — deletion fails when transactions reference the account — which is useful guidance for choosing when to call it. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative route, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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