crpt_remove_cabinet

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds a non-obvious behavioral consequence: 'If it was active, another becomes active.' This goes beyond the structured data and helps an agent anticipate side effects. It does not mention error conditions or irreversibility, but the destructive hint covers the core safety concern.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a single parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the action ('Delete') and resource ('stored cabinet'), and every sentence carries necessary information. 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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no enums, output schema present), the description covers the core action, the side effect about active cabinets, and the parameter meaning. It doesn't discuss error handling, permissions, or what happens if the cabinet doesn't exist, but for a simple delete operation with an output schema, these are not critical gaps. Completeness is strong but not exhaustive.

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 parameter meaning. It explicitly explains `name` as 'the cabinet to remove,' which adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool, though it doesn't specify constraints like existing-cabinet requirements or naming format.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a stored cabinet') and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like crpt_add_cabinet, crpt_list_cabinets, and crpt_use_cabinet. The added side effect about activation further disambiguates its specific role among cabinet-management operations.

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 implied by the wording 'Delete a stored cabinet,' and the parameter list makes the target explicit. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crpt_delete_method or crpt_delete_raw, nor any 'when not to use' conditions. The context is sufficient for a simple tool, but not explicit.

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