delete_customformat_bulk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as cascade effects, atomicity, or confirmation requirements. The only extra information is a pointer to read the GET or /schema endpoint for body fields, which is more about parameters than behavior.

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 very short and to the point, with the core action stated first and the endpoint immediately following. The parameter note is concise and front-loaded with the most important instruction. There is no redundant text or filler.

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, the description lacks essential context such as whether the operation is atomic, what the response contains (though an output schema exists), and when to prefer this over the single-item variant. It provides only the endpoint and a directive to read the schema, which is minimal for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly. The presence of an output schema lowers the need to describe return values, but the missing usage guidance and behavioral notes make it incomplete.

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?

The schema for 'body' has no description, so the parameter semantics are entirely dependent on the description. The description instructs the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which provides a useful strategy but does not enumerate the fields themselves. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but falls short of fully describing the expected payload.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('CustomFormat'), and the endpoint '/api/v3/customformat/bulk' clarifies it is a bulk operation. It does not explicitly mention that this is for multiple items vs. single-item deletion, but the name and endpoint make that evident. It is distinguishable from delete_customformat_by_id by the 'bulk' in the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this bulk endpoint versus the single-item delete_customformat_by_id, nor any prerequisites or side effects. It only states the HTTP method and endpoint. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'alternatives' advice, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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