bridge_create_external_account

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only mentions 'Link an external bank account' without disclosing side effects such as creating a persistent financial record, irreversibility, or any verification prerequisites. The schema reveals an idempotency_key, but the description does not elaborate on retry safety or other behavioral implications.

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, straightforward sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, conditional fields, no output schema) and lack of annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist), validation behavior, or what the response contains. The one-sentence description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent attempting to invoke this tool effectively.

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 the parameters are fully explained in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond stating the purpose ('for payouts'), but does not clarify field relationships like IBAN vs. account_number depending on account_type. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Link an external bank account') and the resource ('to a customer for payouts'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like bridge_get_external_account and bridge_create_virtual_account by specifying the target resource and purpose.

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 context ('for payouts') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_create_virtual_account or bridge_create_wallet. There is no exclusions or comparison, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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