Bulk Delete BIM Model Revision Viewpoints

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it states permanence ('Permanently removes... cannot be undone'), explains the 404 on repeat calls, and details error payload behavior with status-specific causes. This adds substantive context that annotations alone don't provide.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then provides verification, permanence, error statuses, and endpoint details. It's somewhat dense but each sentence contributes, and the structure is logical. Not overly verbose.

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 a bulk delete with moderate complexity; the description covers purpose, verification, failure modes, and endpoint. It doesn't mention partial-success semantics or batch size limits, but the annotations and schema cover the basic contract. Overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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 coverage 100% means the schema documents both parameters effectively. The description only lists required parameters and says 'Required parameters: project_id, ids,' adding little beyond the schema. It does imply ids are target viewpoint IDs via the verification advice, but doesn't clarify array format or count limits.

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 'Delete multiple BIM Model Revision Viewpoint associations in a single request,' which specifies the verb (delete), resource (BIM Model Revision Viewpoint associations), and scope (multiple, batch). It distinguishes from the single-delete sibling by emphasizing bulk operation and includes the exact endpoint.

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?

It advises 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling,' giving a concrete verification step. It also enumerates common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) to guide troubleshooting, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the single-delete sibling or specify when to prefer bulk over single.

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