Delete multiple requirements in one request, moving selected items to the trash for later restoration if needed.
Delete multiple requirements. Delete multiple requirements at once in a single request. Specify the requirement identifiers you want to delete, and all selected requirements will be moved to the trash. Deleted requirements 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, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the deletions are a soft delete ('moved to the trash') and are reversible ('can be restored later'). That materially changes how an agent should treat an otherwise 'destructive' call. It still omits permission requirements and behavior for non-existent/invalid IDs.
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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Delete multiple requirements.' / 'Delete multiple requirements at once in a single request.'), wasting the highest-value opening position. The subsequent trash/restore sentence does earn its place, so the waste is bounded.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (items go to trash, restorable) but leaves open what the response contains, whether the delete is partial-success tolerant, and any batch size limit. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that the request body should carry 'the requirement identifiers you want to delete' — tying the otherwise bare `body` array to requirement IDs. However it gives no array format, cardinality limit, or handling of unknown/missing IDs, so the compensation is partial.
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+resource ('Delete multiple requirements') plus the batch scope ('at once in a single request'), which implicitly separates it from the singular delete_requirement sibling. It never names an alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-batch routing.
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 only says the tool deletes many requirements in one request; there is no statement of when to prefer this over delete_requirement, nor any preconditions (permissions, max batch size, whether some other batch_* sibling is needed first for filtering). Usage is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.