bank_accounts_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: permanence of deletion, constraints on last/default account, and the data-retention behavior for existing invoices (IBAN retained in stored data). This is strong coverage of side effects and preconditions for a destructive operation, though it doesn't address permission/auth requirements.

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 sentences, no waste. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it can't do (with remedy), and the data-retention side effect. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: permanence, constraints, and downstream data behavior. It could mention auth/permission requirements, but given the simplicity (2 params) this is largely complete for safe invocation.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema (uuid and companyId). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema—it mentions company context implicitly but doesn't elaborate on companyId override behavior beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation.

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?

Purpose is clearly stated: 'Permanently delete a bank account.' The verb (delete), resource (bank account), and permanence are all explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'permanently' and outlining specific constraints (cannot delete last account or default 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?

The description provides clear context on when deletion is NOT possible (last account, default account), with an actionable hint to set another as default first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use it vs. not using it, relying on implied exclusivity from siblings like bank_accounts_update (for setting default).

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