Permanently delete multiple product records at once after user confirmation. Target specific products by IDs or apply filters to remove all matching records.
Bulk-delete selected product records permanently. Only call after the user explicitly confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelId | No | Product model id | |
| selection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does convey permanence and the need for user confirmation, which are critical for a destructive operation. But it does not explain how 'selected' records are determined (ids vs filter vs allMatching), whether deletion is transactional, or what happens to dependent data like orders or media references.
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, direct sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical confirmation requirement follows immediately. No wasted words.
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 destructive bulk operation with a nested selection object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits important context about how the selection parameters map to deletion behavior, what happens when both ids and filter are provided, and what the tool returns or whether it can be partially applied.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain the role of modelId or the selection object, and the nested filter sub-parameters (search, status, price range, stockState, hasVariants) are undocumented in both the schema and description. The 'allMatching' flag is described in the schema but not in the 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 a specific verb ('Bulk-delete'), a resource ('product records'), and a key qualifier ('permanently'). This distinguishes it from singular operations like delete_record and from bulk_update_products, which updates rather than deletes.
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 explicit instruction 'Only call after the user explicitly confirms' provides a strong, safety-critical usage condition. However, it does not differentiate from the single-record delete_record sibling or mention when bulk vs single deletion is appropriate, leaving some routing implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.