bank_accounts_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by naming the two refusal conditions (last account, default account) and the side effect on invoices (IBAN retained in stored data). It does not say what error/sentinel is returned when deletion is blocked, nor whether any restore path exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, then the blocking rules, then the data-retention consequence. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before mutating: irreversibility, two blocking conditions, and downstream effects on invoices. It stops short of documenting failure/error behavior and whether the deleted account can be recreated identically.

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% for both parameters, so the uuid and companyId semantics are already carried by the schema. The description only gestures at company scoping ('for a company') and adds no format, identifier, or override detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a bank account') with the destructive permanence made explicit, which instantly separates it from bank_accounts_update/create/list. The added constraints and downstream data note further pin down its scope.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and implicitly the alternative path: if the account is the default, 'set another as default first' (i.e., use bank_accounts_update). Missing an explicit statement of when to prefer a sibling such as listing accounts to verify, but the blocking conditions effectively define when-not-to-call.

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