Delete multiple looks in one operation by providing look IDs and confirming deletion. Returns counts of successful deletions and any failed IDs for quick review.
Delete multiple looks in a single operation. Returns count of successfully deleted looks and any failed IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookIds | Yes | Array of look 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 burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: partial-failure semantics via 'count of successfully deleted looks and any failed IDs'. However it omits irreversibility/recoverability, permission requirements, and any mention of the confirmDelete safety gate beyond what the schema already states.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope front-loaded before the return-value note.
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?
It usefully compensates for the absent output schema by describing the return payload, but for a destructive mutation with no annotations it should also address reversibility and the confirmDelete requirement to be fully self-sufficient.
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 parameters (lookIds, confirmDelete) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, limit, or ordering semantics for lookIds beyond what the schema provides.
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 (delete), a specific resource (looks), and the bulk scope (multiple in a single operation), which cleanly separates it from bulk_delete_projects, bulk_delete_cues, and single-item delete_look.
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 when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over repeated single deletions, nor mentions the confirmDelete prerequisite, nor names any alternative tool. The reader must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.