set_bank_sync_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses idempotency, banking-write semantics, default OFF, that it creates/enables/fires no rule, that it stores linkage on the connection, and that it posts nothing. This goes well beyond a typical definition.

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 definition is densely informative but front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by the mechanism, invocation rules, exclusions, and side-effect profile. Every sentence earns its place and there is little redundant prose.

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 description is unusually complete given no annotations and no output schema: it covers purpose, preconditions, defaults, side effects, and the boundary with G01. The main gap is that the semantics of the required workspaceId and idempotencyKey parameters are left to inference.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for ruleId (link with preconditions, omit/null to unlink) and references connectionId as the linkage target. However, schema coverage is 0% and required params workspaceId and idempotencyKey are not explained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema 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 first sentence names the exact verb pair (link or unlink), the resource (G01 automation rule driving an EBICS scheduled sync), and the scope. It also explicitly scopes out rule creation, enabling, or firing, which distinguishes it from bank_sync and rule-management siblings.

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 gives direct invocation guidance: pass ruleId to link, omit/null to unlink, and requires the rule to have action bank_sync and not be archived. It also explains that creating/enabling/firing rules belongs to G01's surface, preventing misuse of this tool for those operations.

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