bulkDeleteRecords

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it stresses irreversibility, high-impact potential, and a mandatory preview+confirmation protocol. It stops short of noting limits, partial-failure behavior, or how transactionId affects atomicity.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding, and the irreversibility warning is placed ahead of the procedural requirement so the agent registers risk before workflow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive bulk mutation the description covers the critical unknowns (irreversibility, required confirmation). Minor gaps remain around atomicity/limits, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (where, labels, transactionId) are already documented. The description only indirectly hints at where/labels via the findRecords parity requirement and adds nothing about transactionId, 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+resource ('Delete all records') plus the scope qualifier ('matching a query'), which distinguishes it from the single-record siblings deleteRecord/deleteRecordById. The impact framing in the same sentence aids selection immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call findRecords with the same labels+where to preview, then obtain explicit user confirmation before invoking. This is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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