Delete a stored cabinet from the Avito business API. If it was active, another becomes active.
Delete a stored cabinet. If it was active, another becomes active.
Args: name: the cabinet to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: deleting an active cabinet automatically promotes another cabinet to active. This is valuable context, though it does not cover failure modes or permission requirements.
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?
The description is two short sentences plus a one-line Args block. It leads with the action, then the key side effect, with no filler, no repeated schema information, and no unnecessary wording.
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 an output schema present and a single, well-explained parameter, nothing critical is missing. The active-cabinet fallback is disclosed, and annotations cover safety. It stops short of saying what happens if the name is unknown or nonexistent, but that is minor for such a simple destructive tool.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving 'name' as a bare string with title 'Name'. The description's 'Args: name: the cabinet to remove' supplies the necessary semantic mapping, making clear that name identifies a stored cabinet. This fully compensates for the bare schema.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a stored cabinet.' It also discloses the side effect ('If it was active, another becomes active.'), which clarifies the tool's exact scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cabinet-list/add/use tools.
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 states what the tool deletes but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools like avito_use_cabinet or avito_add_cabinet. Usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'cabinet,' but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.