Delete a stored Diadoc cabinet. If the removed cabinet is active, another becomes active automatically.
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, covering the mutating nature. The description adds the specific consequence that if the deleted cabinet was active, another becomes active, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentences plus an Args line with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note is concise. Every word earns its place.
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 delete operation with one parameter, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and the important side effect. Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Minor gaps like error handling or permissions are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and annotations.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It states 'name: the cabinet to remove', which gives clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. This is sufficient for a single string parameter, though it could mention format or constraints.
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 the tool deletes a stored cabinet, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_cabinet, list_cabinets, and use_cabinet by focusing on deletion. The added note about active cabinets clarifies a specific side effect, making the purpose 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for deletion, prerequisites, or when to prefer other cabinet-related tools. The only behavioral note is about active cabinet fallback, but it does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.