Permanently delete a bank account. Existing checks created using that account remain unaffected, so you can safely remove outdated bank details without altering prior checks.
Delete a bank account. This cannot be undone. Checks already created using this account are not affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bank account ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well by explicitly warning that the deletion 'cannot be undone' and clarifying that existing checks are unaffected. This gives an agent the key risk and side-effect information needed before invoking a destructive operation.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important irreversible and non-cascading consequences earn their place.
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 one-parameter destructive tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and the main side-effect on checks. It could add expected response or permission requirements, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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%: the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Bank account ID to delete.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a bank account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like postgrid_delete_contact and postgrid_delete_template by naming the exact resource type.
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 intended use is implied by the name and first sentence, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There are no alternative bank-account deletion tools among siblings, so the lack of contrast is less damaging, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.