Delete Bank Account

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description's destructive nature is redundant. However, the description adds valuable behavior: 'Fails if the account is referenced by existing transactions', which goes beyond annotations and informs the agent of a critical constraint.

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 sentence with a conditional clause, no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action, followed by the key behavioral constraint. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and a critical failure condition. It does not mention the return value or irreversibility (implied by annotations), but is largely sufficient given the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description 'Bank account ID'. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it does not improve upon the schema's semantic clarity.

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 the action 'Delete a company bank account', identifying the tool as a destructive operation on a specific resource. The additional condition 'Fails if the account is referenced by existing transactions' sets it apart from sibling tools like delete_client or delete_product, providing unique context.

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 implies use when permanent removal is desired, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like deactivation (though no sibling deactivate exists). It provides a condition but lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or prerequisites beyond the failure case.

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