delete_suppliers_bulkDelete multiple suppliers in one transaction (soft-delete to bin). All-or-nothing: the whole request fails if any id is unknown or any supplier still has linked expenses. Body: {suppliers: [{id} ...]}. For a single supplier use delete_supplier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suppliers | Yes | Suppliers to delete; each item requires :id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description goes further by disclosing that deletion is a soft-delete to bin, that the operation is transactional and all-or-nothing, and exactly which conditions trigger failure. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations with no contradiction.
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 with zero filler. The core purpose and semantics are front-loaded, the body format follows, and the sibling alternative is given last. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: soft-delete, transaction semantics, failure conditions, body shape, and the single-supplier alternative. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.
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 input schema has 100% coverage: the 'suppliers' array and each item's required 'id' are fully documented. The description's 'Body: {suppliers: [{id} ...]}' essentially restates the schema structure without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete multiple suppliers') and the scope ('in one transaction'). It also explicitly differentiates from the single-supplier sibling: 'For a single supplier use delete_supplier.' No ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 clearly says when to use this tool versus delete_supplier, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states important usage constraints: all-or-nothing behavior, failure on unknown IDs, and failure when linked expenses exist. This leaves no inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.