Delete a stored marketplace 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.
v0.5.2Does 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 covered by structured data. The description adds a meaningful side effect beyond annotations: if the removed cabinet was active, another cabinet becomes active. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like permanence, error behavior for nonexistent names, or authorization requirements.
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 with the core operation, followed by the key side effect and the parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.
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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the operation and the most important side effect. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and exact name matching, but the overall context is adequate for typical use.
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 must carry parameter meaning. It does identify 'name' as 'the cabinet to remove,' which is useful and more informative than the schema's bare 'Name' label. However, it does not clarify what form the name takes, how to discover valid values, or whether it must exactly match a stored cabinet name.
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 ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a stored cabinet'), and the active-cabinet fallback adds a useful behavioral detail. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ym_use_cabinet and ym_add_cabinet. No ambiguity remains about what operation this tool performs.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to related tools such as ym_use_cabinet or ym_add_cabinet. The active-cabinet fallback is a consequence, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.