Delete up to 100 devices in a single operation, with soft delete by default and an option for permanent removal. Requires write permission.
Delete multiple devices/resources in one operation (max 100, requires write permission). Soft delete by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_ids | Yes | Device IDs to delete (max 100) | |
| delete_hard | No | Permanently delete (default: soft delete) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, it adds a concrete permission prerequisite ('requires write permission'), a batch ceiling, and the crucial soft-delete default that tempers what destructiveHint alone would imply. It also lets the agent infer that hard deletion is the opted-in exception via delete_hard.
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 sentences front-load the core purpose and constraints, with no filler or repetition. Every clause adds operational information.
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 two-parameter destructive operation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, permission, limit, and default behavior. It stops just short of explicitly linking soft deletion to recover_device or stating the irreversibility of delete_hard, which would make it fully self-contained.
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% for both parameters, and the description largely restates what the schema already says ('max 100', 'soft delete by default'). It does not add new formats or relationships, so the baseline of 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 precise action ('Delete'), a bounded resource scope ('multiple devices/resources'), and a single-operation batching guarantee ('max 100'). The bulk scope clearly distinguishes it from the singleton delete_device sibling and from recover_device's opposite action.
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 clearly signals batch usage ('multiple devices in one operation') and gives a cardinality ceiling, which is the main selection criterion against delete_device. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the bulk qualifier makes the intended context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.