Delete a stored cabinet and automatically switch to another active cabinet if the removed one was active. Use it to remove unused or obsolete Diadoc cabinets.
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 non-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra behavior beyond the annotations: if the removed cabinet was active, another becomes active. It still omits whether deletion is reversible and whether the active cabinet's replacement is deterministic.
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 with the core action and side effect front-loaded, plus a compact Args block. No wasted prose, though the Args line duplicates the parameter name already in the schema.
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. For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action and the active-cabinet side effect but omits reversibility and where to source valid names, leaving modest gaps.
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 carries the full burden, and "name: the cabinet to remove" merely restates the parameter name. It gives no format, case-sensitivity, or hint about obtaining valid names (e.g. via diadoc_list_cabinets).
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?
Clear verb+resource: "Delete a stored cabinet" tells the agent exactly what happens, and the sibling set (add_cabinet, use_cabinet, list_cabinets) makes the intent unambiguous by contrast. It does not explicitly name a sibling, 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?
Usage is only implied — a stored cabinet you no longer need gets removed. Nothing states when to prefer use_cabinet (switching) over remove_cabinet, nor any prerequisites or confirmation requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.