Remove a stored Ozon cabinet by name. If the 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.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: if the removed cabinet was active, another becomes active. This is a valuable side-effect disclosure.
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 short and front-loaded: the primary action is stated first, followed by a useful behavioral note and the argument explanation. There is minor redundancy between 'Delete' and 'remove,' but no wasted content.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with annotations and an output schema, this description is largely complete: it identifies the target, the side effect, and the argument. It does not discuss error behavior or prerequisites, but those are not essential here.
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%, but the description explicitly defines `name` as 'the cabinet to remove,' fully clarifying the single required parameter. No further format or constraint details are needed for this simple string parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a stored cabinet.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like add, list, or use cabinets. The additional active-cabinet behavior clarifies the exact scope of the operation.
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 context is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the reference to a stored cabinet, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It gives no direct comparison to siblings like ozon_add_cabinet or ozon_use_cabinet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.