Remove a stored Avito cabinet by name. If the deleted cabinet was active, another stored cabinet is automatically activated.
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.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the destructive action and the notable side-effect that another cabinet becomes active if the removed one was active. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation and adds useful operational context.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation first, then the side-effect, then the argument. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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, one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the operation, the parameter, and the key side-effect. It omits usage alternatives, but the tool is straightforward and an output schema is present.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the essential meaning: name is the cabinet to remove. This directly maps the single required parameter to the operation, though it adds no finer detail about naming or format.
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 action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a stored cabinet'), and adds a meaningful side-effect detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as avito_add_cabinet, avito_list_cabinets, and avito_use_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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over cabinet-related alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The active-cabinet fallback is a behavioral fact, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.