Delete multiple applications in a single request; deleted items are moved to the trash and can be restored later.
Delete multiple applications. Delete multiple applications in a single request. Deleted applications are moved to the trash and can be restored later if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: deletions are soft, moved to trash, and can be restored later. It does not state what happens on partial failure or whether the request is atomic.
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 opens with the same statement twice ('Delete multiple applications.' / 'Delete multiple applications in a single request.'), wasting the most valuable front-loaded position. The third sentence is genuinely informative, so the text is not bloated overall, just redundantly led.
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 trash/restore note and the annotations give an agent enough to understand the operation's nature. Missing pieces for a batch mutation tool with no output schema are partial-failure semantics, response shape, and routing versus the singular delete_application.
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 reported as 0%, and the single body parameter is an array of objects containing an 'id' field. The description says nothing about the expected payload shape, how many IDs are accepted, or whether unknown/nonexistent IDs cause the whole batch to fail, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Delete multiple applications') and the batch scope distinguishes it from the singular sibling delete_application. However, it never explicitly names that alternative or any other sibling, so the differentiation is only implied by the word 'multiple'.
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 guidance on when to use this batch tool versus delete_application, restore_application, or the many other post_batch_delete_* siblings. The reader must infer batch usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.