Update Bank Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the partial-patch behavior, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth requirements or what happens to untouched fields beyond the implicit merge semantics.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With six parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description covers what is needed to call the tool correctly, including the patch semantics. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on permissions or failure modes for an update operation.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the required id. The description restates the field groups (account number/SWIFT/bank, invoice visibility) but adds no format, range, or validity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and resource (company bank account), then enumerates the mutable fields in plain language, so an agent immediately knows what the tool touches. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as create_bank_account or delete_bank_account, but the name plus scope makes the distinction obvious.

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?

'Pass only the fields to change' gives real guidance on partial-update semantics, which is a genuine usage instruction. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites (permissions, ID sourcing) are mentioned.

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