Batch delete parts by part number or numeric ID from Binner inventory. Use this to remove multiple parts at once for cleanup or record corrections.
Batch delete parts by part number or ID.
Args: part_numbers: Part numbers to delete. part_ids: Numeric part IDs to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part_ids | No | ||
| part_numbers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'delete' but never states whether deletion is permanent, what happens to BOM references or dependent records, whether permissions are required, or what occurs if both identifier lists are omitted.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, and the argument listing is terse. The Args block largely duplicates schema titles, which is minor waste but not bloat.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but this is a destructive, zero-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no coverage of cascade effects, mutual exclusivity of the two identifier inputs, or empty-input behavior. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names ('Part numbers to delete', 'Numeric part IDs to delete'). It does not explain that both are optional, whether they are mutually exclusive, how they combine, or what happens with neither supplied.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Batch delete parts') and notes the two identification methods, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings such as delete_part_types or delete_projects, keeping it short of a 5.
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 no when-to-use context, no alternatives (e.g., save_parts or manage_bom_parts), and no prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.