Delete cipher selected put

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's contribution is the qualification that this is a soft-delete moving items to trash, i.e. recoverable. That is genuinely additive, but it omits what identifies the selection, whether evidence/attachments survive, and any scoping limits.

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?

A single short fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one clause present omits the resource, and there is no front-loaded detail about inputs or effect.

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?

A destructive bulk mutation with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a dense set of sibling variants demands more than this one clause. How to specify the selected ciphers and what happens on partial failure are missing entirely.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage and are generically named, and the description adds nothing about how the list of ciphers to delete is supplied. The main semantic question the caller has is left completely unanswered.

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?

"Bulk soft-delete (move to trash)" states the operation and its recoverability, but never names the resource being deleted (ciphers); the agent must infer it from the tool name. With ~11 near-identical delete_cipher* siblings, it does nothing to distinguish itself.

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 on when this PUT-based bulk-selected delete should be chosen over delete_cipher_selected, delete_cipher_selected_post, or the _admin variants. The only implicit signal is 'soft-delete' implying a recoverable alternative to a hard delete, which is not stated as a selection criterion.

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