bank_accounts_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a write/creation operation (balance implications), explains side effects (demoting existing defaults, enabling cash-register tracking), and notes the openingBalance becomes locked once set. It does not explicitly state destructive risks or whether deletion/rollback is possible, but the creation semantics are well-covered.

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 well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers key business rules. It's information-dense with every sentence adding value, though it's somewhat long and could potentially be broken into clearer structured points. No wasted words or tautological content.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does substantial work: it covers the bank vs cash semantics, unique constraints, default demotion, opening balance behavior. It could be more complete regarding what happens after creation (return value, whether the bank account is immediately usable) and could benefit from listing a prerequisite (e.g., active company required), but it exceeds the minimum viable standard comfortably.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the dependencies between parameters (openingBalance/openingBalanceDate enable cash-register reporting, IBAN required for bank), the locking behavior of openingBalance, and the uniqueness constraint on IBAN. It explains the isDefault demotion side-effect, which the schema does not mention.

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 clearly states the verb+resource ('Add a new bank account to the active company') and distinguishes between bank and cash account types, which differentiates this tool from bank_accounts_update and bank_accounts_list siblings. It explains key business rules (unique IBAN, one cash account per company, default demotion).

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 description provides clear context for when to use type=bank vs type=cash and explains the implications (IBAN required for bank, cash-register tracking for cash). It explains the one-cash-account-per-company constraint and default demotion behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool. The distinction between bank and cash accounts within the same description serves as implicit usage guidance.

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