sbis_remove_cabinet

Does 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 a useful behavioral detail: if the removed cabinet was active, another becomes active. This goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what 'another becomes active' means (which cabinet, how chosen), nor any side effects on stored data or auth state. With annotations covering the destructive hint, a 3 is appropriate.

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 main action is in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation follows. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the parameter doc), but it's efficient and readable.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness. The description covers the core action and the parameter. However, it doesn't explain the return value (despite an output schema existing, the description could still clarify what the agent should expect), nor the selection logic for the new active cabinet. For a destructive operation, this is a moderate gap.

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 compensate. It does explain the only parameter ('name: the cabinet to remove'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., exact cabinet name, case sensitivity, whether it's a path or ID). Since there is only one parameter and it is explained, a 3 is fair.

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 action ('Delete a stored cabinet') and the resource ('cabinet'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sbis_add_cabinet and sbis_list_cabinets. It also adds a behavioral note about active cabinet replacement, which helps clarify the tool's effect. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 this tool: when you need to remove a stored cabinet. It also implies a consequence (if active, another becomes active), which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like sbis_delete_method or sbis_delete_raw, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.