Delete multiple cue lists in one operation with required confirmation, returning the success count and any failed IDs.
Delete multiple cue lists in a single operation. Returns count of successfully deleted cue lists and any failed IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cueListIds | Yes | Array of cue list IDs to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion (required to be true for safety) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully implies non-atomic, partial-success behavior by mentioning 'any failed IDs', which is real behavioral signal, but it never states that deletion is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or that confirmDelete must be true for the call to proceed.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return shape (count plus failed IDs). For a destructive bulk tool with no annotations it could still warn about irreversibility, but the partial-failure semantics and return format are covered.
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%, so both cueListIds and confirmDelete are already documented in the schema; the description adds no param-level syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (cue lists) with explicit scope ('multiple ... in a single operation'), which implicitly separates it from the singular delete_cue_list sibling. It stops short of naming the single-item alternative directly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the single-item delete_cue_list alternative or the confirmDelete precondition beyond what the schema already states. Usage is only implied by the 'bulk' prefix and the plural resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.