Update Bank Account

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false. The description adds the partial update behavior ('Pass only the fields to change'), which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded: verb, resource, and list of modifiable attributes. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage pattern but does not explain the return value or mention the required 'id' parameter (though it's in schema). Given no output schema, some behavioral detail (e.g., response expectations) is missing for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description maps user intentions (rename, fix number, toggle show) to the relevant parameters, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. It also provides usage rule (pass only changed fields).

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'company bank account'. It explicitly lists the types of changes possible (rename, fix account number/SWIFT/bank, toggle show on invoices), distinguishing it from create, read, or delete sibling tools.

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 clear guidance: 'Pass only the fields to change.' This implies a partial update pattern, helping the agent use the tool correctly. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the context of CRUD operations makes its purpose clear.

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