beel_delete_products_bulk

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is partial, reporting successes and failures, and returns 200 with a body instead of 204. This explains the behavioral nuance beyond what annotations convey, and there is no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the limit and partial-success nuance, and ends with the endpoint. Two sentences plus a URL convey the essential information without verbosity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the batch limit, partial failure behavior, and the response code rationale. It lacks only explicit details about required authentication or permissions, but those are likely handled elsewhere and not critical for a delete operation.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The description mentions 'this company (NIF)' but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mainly reinforces the clarification already present in the `company_id` description.

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 action ('Deletes the products listed in `ids` from the catalog of this company (NIF)'), specifies the resource type and scope, and explains the 100-ID limit. It distinguishes itself from the singular 'beel_delete_product' by emphasizing bulk deletion and partial success, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 practical usage guidance (send multiple requests if more than 100 IDs) and explains the 200-with-body vs 204 distinction, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as 'beel_delete_product' for single deletions. The when-to-use is implied rather than directly stated, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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