Delete a stored cabinet from hh.ru. If the removed cabinet was 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 mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description's 'Delete' is consistent. It adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'If it was active, another becomes active,' which is not evident from annotations. This gives the agent insight into side effects beyond the destructive action, earning above baseline.
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: one sentence plus an argument explanation. There is no fluff; every word earns its place. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification follows immediately. This is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.
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 single-parameter delete operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the effect on active status, and the parameter meaning. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.
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 provides only 'name' as a string with a title, no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The line 'name: the cabinet to remove' clarifies exactly what the parameter refers to, adding meaning beyond the schema. It is concise but sufficient.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('stored cabinet'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like hh_add_cabinet and hh_use_cabinet without needing to reference them. The action is clear: removing a cabinet.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a cabinet needs to be deleted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but the context (deleting a cabinet) is self-evident given the sibling list. The absence of explicit exclusions is acceptable for a simple delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.