datalens_workbooks_delete_bulkDeletes multiple workbooks and all their contents at once. Use it to clean up or remove several workbooks in a single operation by providing their IDs.
Delete several workbooks with everything they hold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workbook_ids | Yes | Workbook ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — 'with everything they hold' signals cascading deletion of contained entries — but says nothing about irreversibility, partial-failure behavior, or permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and no padding. It is efficient, though so terse that some of the terseness reads as under-specification rather than economy.
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 bulk destructive operation with no output schema, the annotations carry most of the risk signal and the description supplies the cascade scope. Still missing are guarantees about atomicity/partial failure across the id list, which matters for a batch delete.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents workbook_ids. The description adds no format, batching limit, or id-validation detail, 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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('workbooks') with a bulk scope ('several'), which distinguishes it from the singular datalens_workbooks_delete sibling. It does not, however, name or contrast with that sibling explicitly.
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, no precondition (e.g. what permissions are required), and no mention of the alternative single-delete tool. The agent must infer all usage context 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.