wafeq_bank_accounts_update

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

Annotations already declare this as a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the HTTP method and path ('PUT /bank-accounts/{id}/') and the precondition that the account is existing. However, it does not explain whether the update fully replaces all fields, what side effects occur, or what response shape to expect, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the method and resource. However, 'Update bank account' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing bank account' largely restate the first line and the annotation title, so not every sentence adds unique value. It is not overly verbose, but it is somewhat 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 an update tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description provides the essential endpoint and target but does not clarify full-vs-partial update semantics relative to the sibling tool, nor does it describe the response. The schema and annotations carry most of the parameter and safety burden, making the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the input schema documents the required body fields ('name', 'currency', 'sub_classification') with clear descriptions, and 'idempotency_key' is well explained. The main gap is the top-level 'id' parameter, whose meaning is left to inference, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 states a concrete action ('updates data', 'updating an existing bank account') on a specific resource ('Bank Accounts') and includes the PUT endpoint. This makes the tool's function clear and separates it from list/retrieve/destroy siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the closely related partial_update tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, the sibling wafeq_bank_accounts_partial_update is not mentioned, and the description does not clarify when a full update is required instead of a partial update. The only implied usage cue is that the bank account must already exist ('existing').

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