Delete a stored cabinet from your Ozon Seller account. If it was active, another 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.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Delete' aligns. The description uniquely adds a behavioral consequence: removing the active cabinet automatically activates another. This context goes beyond the annotation's binary safety flag.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded: the core action and consequence are stated first, and the parameter is described clearly. No waste.
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?
With a single parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete for this simple tool. It conveys the essential action and behavioral consequence, and the output schema likely explains return values. There is no missing information required for correct invocation.
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 parameters. It does state that 'name' is the cabinet to remove, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Name' label. However, it does not specify the format of the name (e.g., a name string versus an identifier) or where it comes from, which would be useful.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a stored cabinet' and explains the consequence when the active cabinet is removed. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like ozon_add_cabinet, ozon_use_cabinet, and ozon_list_cabinets.
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 implies when to use: when you need to remove a cabinet mirrors the common pattern among siblings (wb_remove_cabinet, ym_remove_cabinet). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the pattern is consistent across platforms, so context is clear enough given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.