delete_bank_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so well by labeling the tool DESTRUCTIVE and stating that the deletion cannot be undone. It stops short of explaining side effects on related records such as bank movements, but the core irreversibility warning is explicit.

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 three short sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the destructive warning and immediately follows with the safer alternative.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description contains everything needed: what it deletes, that it is permanent, and which safer sibling to use instead. No critical context is missing for correct tool selection.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines accountId sufficiently. The description does not add format or behavioral detail about the identifier beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: permanently deletes a treasury bank account in Holded. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling archive_bank_account, so an agent can tell exactly what this operation is for.

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 toward the safer alternative: prefer archive_bank_account to keep history. This makes the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative decision clear without needing to infer it from the name alone.

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