Delete a stored cabinet. If it was the active cabinet, another automatically 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.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: if the removed cabinet was active, another becomes active — a cascade behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the cascade note follows the core action. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant against the tiny schema but costs little.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover destructiveness. The cascade note fills the main behavioral gap; only permanence/irreversibility and permission needs remain unstated.
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?
One required param with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It gives 'the cabinet to remove', identifying the parameter's meaning but adding no format, source, or lookup guidance.
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+resource ('Delete a stored cabinet'), which clearly separates it from crpt_add_cabinet, crpt_list_cabinets, and crpt_use_cabinet. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus crpt_use_cabinet or crpt_list_cabinets, and no prerequisites or confirmation steps. The only extra sentence describes a side effect, not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.