clients_bulk_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the 100-item ceiling and the non-deterministic skip-or-error outcome for clients with documents, which is exactly the kind of partial-failure risk an agent needs to know.

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 tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the risk caveat second. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations.

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 mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential partial-failure warning and size limit. It stops short of saying whether the response reports which IDs were skipped, which would close the loop for an agent deciding on follow-up.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `ids` and `companyId` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 100-item cap and failure semantics for `ids` but adds no format or override guidance beyond the schema, so 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 and resource with scope ('Delete multiple clients in a single request'), which implicitly separates it from the single-record clients_delete sibling. It never names the alternative explicitly, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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 the batch limit (up to 100) and the document-attachment caveat, which imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over repeated clients_delete calls or on preconditions such as permissions.

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