Remove a stored cabinet by name. If it was active, another cabinet 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.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: deleting the currently active cabinet promotes another to active. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is recoverable or what permissions are required.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key side effect. The 'Args: name' block is somewhat redundant against an already-documented single required parameter, but it costs little.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the destructive nature. For a one-parameter mutation tool the description covers the essential action and side effect; only reversibility and permission requirements are left implicit.
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 carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does define it as 'the cabinet to remove'. However it gives no format hints (exact name string, case sensitivity) or a pointer to where valid names come from (sbis_list_cabinets), so it only partly compensates.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (delete a stored cabinet), and the sibling set (add_cabinet, list_cabinets, use_cabinet) makes the scope unambiguous by naming convention. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, but the operation is unmistakable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as use_cabinet or list_cabinets for looking up valid names. The only context given is a side-effect note, which is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.