freeagent_update_bank_account

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Update' but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether other fields are preserved or reset), idempotency, or response format. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It prioritizes the core purpose and is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema (4 scalar parameters, none nested) and no output schema. The description omits the return value (likely the updated account), but this is acceptable for a basic update operation. Nonetheless, mentioning the return type 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3. It doesn't clarify that parameters are optional (except bank_account_id) or that partial updates are supported.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing bank account in FreeAgent', clearly identifying the action (update), resource (bank account), and context (FreeAgent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like freeagent_create_bank_account and freeagent_delete_bank_account.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that the bank account must already exist (requiring a prior create or get) or that only the fields specified in the input schema are updated. Users must infer usage from context.

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