Delete 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 genuine value beyond that by disclosing the cascading effect: if the deleted cabinet was active, another becomes active. It still doesn't say whether deletion is reversible or what happens on a missing name.
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, front-loaded with the action, and the Args block is minimal. It is close to optimal, though the args restatement adds little beyond the schema.
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 annotations cover the destructive profile. Combined with the active-cabinet cascade note, this is nearly complete; only error/precondition behavior is unaddressed.
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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does define the parameter as 'the cabinet to remove', but that only restates the field name without format, casing, or lookup semantics.
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'), which clearly separates it from siblings like vk_add_cabinet and vk_use_cabinet. The behavior is unambiguous, though it does not name an alternative or scoping condition explicitly.
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 (e.g., must the cabinet exist, does it need to be inactive first), and no mention of alternatives such as vk_use_cabinet. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.