brc_update_bank_account

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

Discloses the critical behavioral trait of requiring a two-step preflight/confirmation pattern, which is not obvious from the schema alone. Describes that first call returns a preview and confirmation_required, and that preflight is not confirmation. With no annotations, the description carries this burden well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Efficiently conveys the critical workflow. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and free of fluff.

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?

Covers the key confirmation workflow but lacks details on output format for successful update (no output schema) and error handling. With 5 parameters and nested objects, more context on return values and error states would improve 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant value for confirmWrite by detailing the confirmation workflow. For other parameters like payload and updates, it minimally adds 'merged fields' which aligns with schema.

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 tool updates a BRC bank account using merged fields (verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling update tools by specifying 'bank account.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with other bank account tools like create/delete.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions for the two-step confirmation process, including when to set confirmWrite and how to show plain-English summaries. Does not compare to other tools but the name implies update vs. create/delete.

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