bank_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete a bank and its contents' discloses destructive scope but omits critical details such as whether the deletion is undoable, whether it requires exclusive access, or what happens to events owned by the bank. There is no mention of confirmation or effects on other workspace entities.

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 extremely compact: one sentence plus an args line. It avoids redundancy but is arguably under-specified for a destructive operation. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and free of filler, but loses a point for omitting important usage context that brevity permitted.

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 is destructive, has a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description should compensate by explaining return values, irreversibility, or edge cases (e.g., deleting a bank with referenced events). It does not, leaving the agent to guess at the operational impact.

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 0% — the schema only provides 'target' with type string. The description fills this gap by specifying the accepted formats ('bank:/ path or {guid}'), which adds meaningful syntax guidance beyond the schema. However, it could further clarify whether the GUID refers to a universally unique bank identifier or workspace-scoped identifier.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a bank'), and further specifies it removes the bank's contents. This differentiates it from siblings like bank_create, bank_list, bank_info, and bank_rename, and confirms it operates on the bank entity.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bank_remove_event (which removes specific events rather than whole banks). It also fails to mention whether the bank must be empty, whether deletion is irreversible, or any prerequisites like having the bank loaded.

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