Remove multiple fixtures from a lighting rig in one operation and get the count of deleted fixtures plus any failed IDs; confirmDelete must be true.
Delete multiple fixture instances in a single operation. Returns count of successfully deleted fixtures and any failed IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixtureIds | Yes | Array of fixture 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 behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing non-atomic, partial-failure semantics ('any failed IDs'), which is not derivable from the schema, but it omits irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, and any batch-size limits for a destructive operation.
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 zero filler; the action and its return contract are front-loaded in that order. Nothing in the text is redundant.
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 absence of an output schema is partly offset because the description states the return shape (deleted count plus failed IDs). However, for a destructive bulk tool with no annotations at all, more disclosure about irreversibility and the confirmDelete safeguard's effect would be needed to be fully complete.
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%, and both fixtureIds and the confirmDelete safety flag are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, ordering, or limit detail beyond that, so the 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Delete') plus resource ('fixture instances') and scope ('multiple ... in a single operation'), which distinguishes it from the singular delete_fixture_instance sibling by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it is clear but not maximally disambiguating.
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 phrase 'in a single operation' implies this is the batch-efficient path versus deleting one at a time, but the description never states when to prefer it over delete_fixture_instance or bulk_update_fixtures. Usage must be inferred from the name and the word 'multiple'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.