Remove one or more blog articles from a WebCake/StoreCake storefront by ID. Soft deletion hides them from the live site while keeping records.
Delete blog articles (soft delete — they disappear from the site)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Article ID | |
| ids | No | Several article IDs to delete in one call |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.10Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Several article IDs to delete in one call",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "id"
-]v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: this is a SOFT delete that merely removes articles from the site, implying the content survives server-side. That materially tempers an otherwise alarming destructive annotation. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't state whether the soft delete is reversible, how bulk deletes behave, or any confirmation requirement.
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 with no wasted words; the most decision-relevant fact (soft delete) is placed immediately after the verb and resource.
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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the key soft-delete nuance. It leaves minor gaps: reversibility of the soft delete and any confirmation step, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, with both id and ids documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or interaction detail between single and multiple delete.
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 ("Delete") and resource ("blog articles"), which cleanly separates it from delete_page, delete_product, delete_collection and other delete siblings. The parenthetical narrows scope further. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., delete_page for pages, or an archive tool for reversibility). The soft-delete note informs behavior but gives no guidance on choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.