Soft-delete multiple suppliers in a single request by passing their UUIDs, then receive the deleted count and any errors. Use it to remove up to 100 supplier records at once.
Soft-delete multiple suppliers in a single request. Returns the count of deleted items and any errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of supplier UUIDs to delete (1-100) | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious fact that this is a *soft* delete rather than permanent removal. It also discloses the return shape—count plus any errors—which hints at partial-failure behavior. It doesn't explain whether partial successes roll back, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.
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, purpose front-loaded, return semantics second. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description properly states what comes back (count and errors), and the soft-delete disclosure is crucial for a destructive bulk tool. Minor gaps remain around partial-failure semantics and confirmation, but nothing essential to calling it 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 coverage is 100%, with both 'ids' (1-100 array) and 'companyId' (overrides configured default) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, 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 and scope: 'Soft-delete multiple suppliers in a single request.' The words 'multiple' and 'bulk' clearly distinguish it from the sibling suppliers_delete for single records, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'multiple' and the bulk naming; it never explicitly says when to choose this over suppliers_delete or another bulk operation. Adequate but no exclusions or confirmation requirements for a destructive action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.