Delete multiple custom properties at once by providing their IDs. Removes them from your DEX tenant when write permission is granted.
Delete multiple Custom Properties by their IDs. Requires 'Write' on 'CustomProperty'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required permission ('Write' on 'CustomProperty') and the destructive nature of the operation, but it does not mention side effects, partial-failure behavior, or irreversibility. This is adequate but minimal for a destructive multi-ID operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and required permission without filler. It could have added a sibling alternative, but as written it is tightly structured.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the essentials are present: what it does, what it targets, and the required permission. Since there is no output schema, return-value details are not required. However, it lacks usage-routing guidance versus the single-delete sibling and omits behavioral caveats about partial deletions, so completeness is only moderate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'ids' parameter. It adds 'by their IDs' to clarify the parameter's purpose, but it does not elaborate on constraints such as non-empty, uniqueness, or count limits. For a simple single-array parameter, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Custom Properties'), and clarifies bulk behavior via 'multiple' and 'by their IDs'. It clearly distinguishes from the single-item sibling custom_properties_delete, though it doesn't name it explicitly.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over custom_properties_delete or other custom property operations. The only added context is the permission requirement, with no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.