Delete a stored cabinet by name. If the removed cabinet was active, another cabinet 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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral consequence: deleting the active cabinet promotes another to active, which the annotations cannot convey. It still omits irreversibility/recoverability and behavior for a nonexistent name.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in one short sentence, then the side effect. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema, but the overall size is appropriate and waste is minimal.
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 explained, and the tool is simple with one required param. However, the description says nothing about failure modes (unknown name), permanence of deletion, or auth requirements, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.
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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry it. It only restates 'name: the cabinet to remove' with no format, lookup, or matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, whether name must match list_cabinets output). Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.
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.' It is distinguishable from add_cabinet, list_cabinets, and use_cabinet by the deletion framing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as use_cabinet or set_key.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent gets no signal about whether removing an active cabinet is safe or whether use_cabinet should be called first. The only conditional provided ('if it was active, another becomes active') describes a side effect, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.