Delete a stored cabinet in Moysklad. If it 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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a valuable behavioral trait: 'If it was active, another becomes active.' It does not fully specify how the next active cabinet is chosen, but it goes beyond what the structured annotations provide.
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 two compact sentences plus one argument line. Every sentence contributes: the action, the side effect, and the parameter meaning. There is no fluff.
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 tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It states the effect and the side effect; a small gap is not explaining how to identify a cabinet or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.
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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'name: the cabinet to remove.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field by tying the string to the resource being deleted.
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.' It clearly identifies the operation and is not a tautology of the tool name, and the active-cabinet side effect helps distinguish removal from other cabinet actions.
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 use case is implied: if you need to remove a stored cabinet, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling deletion tools such as ms_delete_method or ms_delete_document, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.