batch_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the destructive nature. The description adds 'Confirm required,' indicating that confirmation is needed for deletion, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it is ambiguous—it does not state that the confirm parameter must be true, nor what happens if it is false. It provides minimal extra behavioral context without 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?

The description is very concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place—the purpose sentence and the confirmation note are both relevant. It is not verbose, though it could be more structured (e.g., separate behavior details), but it is efficient.

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?

Given it is a destructive batch operation with a confirmation parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the confirmation behavior (e.g., does confirm need to be explicitly true?), nor does it explain what constitutes 'objects' (IDs vs. names). Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the operational context is insufficient for an agent to call this safely and correctly without additional assumptions.

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 is 0% (description does not document parameters), so the description must compensate. It only says 'multiple objects at once' and 'Confirm required,' which vaguely implies the 'objects' array and the 'confirm' flag. It does not explain what the objects array contains (e.g., IDs, names), the format, or the exact role of confirm beyond being required. This is insufficient for the schema coverage gap.

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 the tool deletes multiple objects at once, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_object (single deletion) and delete_collection (collection-level deletion), so an agent can understand its unique role without opening the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention batch operations as a preferred choice over repeated delete_object calls, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The only hint is 'Confirm required,' which is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline.

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