Deletes multiple proxies in a single operation.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the bulk-request nature and workspace scoping, but says nothing about whether deletion is reversible, whether invalid IDs abort the whole batch, or how partial failures are reported.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the precondition second. No filler, though the second sentence is generic advice that could be more specific about failure handling.

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 destructive bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic contract and the annotations cover safety, but it omits batch-size limits, error semantics for invalid/nonexistent IDs, and whether partial deletion is possible. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: the body array (non-null, non-empty UUIDs) and workspaceId (-1 = default) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that IDs must be valid and exist in the workspace, adding no syntax, size-limit, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource with scope: 'sends a bulk delete request to the API to remove the specified proxies.' It is clearly distinguishable in kind from delete_proxy, but it never explicitly says it is the batched counterpart to the single-delete sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 only guidance is a validation precondition ('ensure that the provided proxy IDs are valid and exist in the specified workspace'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over delete_proxy or bulk_delete_profile, and no warning about irreversibility or what to do on partial failure.

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