archive_bank_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by tagging this as a WRITE operation and disclosing reversibility, but it doesn't explain what archiving actually does downstream (e.g., whether the account disappears from list_bank_accounts, how restoration works, or any permission requirements).

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 compact sentences, with the WRITE marker and the core function front-loaded, followed immediately by the disambiguation. Every clause carries signal; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it does, that it's reversible, which sibling it replaces) but leaves behavioral gaps: state after archiving, restoration path, and error/permission conditions are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter, accountId, fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, ID-source, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, which is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('archives') and resource ('treasury bank account in Holded, API v2'), and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling delete_bank_account. An agent can distinguish this from the delete/create/update bank account siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use this as the 'reversible alternative to delete_bank_account,' which is a clear when-to-use signal against the most likely competing tool. It stops short of stating prerequisites (permissions, whether archived accounts remain visible or can be unarchived), so no full 5.

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