Delete Multiple Entities

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

The description aligns with annotations: it is a write/destructive operation and returns a count. It adds the return-count contract and batching behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose partial-failure or irreversibility details beyond what destructiveHint already signals. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences each add value: the first states the action, the second the successful return value. No filler, redundant clauses, or repetition of the schema/annotations.

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-required-parameter destructive batch delete with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema covers the main contract. It stops short of explaining behavior when a handle is invalid, whether deletion is atomic, or whether the count reflects only successful deletions, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity call.

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% and the only parameter, handles, is already documented as a list of entity handles to delete, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the resource ('multiple entities'), and adds the batching scope ('in one call'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling entity_delete, though the name and 'multiple' phrasing make the distinction inferable.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies the tool is for batching deletions, which is a usage signal. However, no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative (e.g., entity_delete for a single entity) is provided, so the agent must infer selection from the name.

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