Delete a stored cabinet by name. If the removed cabinet was active, another cabinet automatically becomes active to keep operations running.
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, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the post-deletion behavior: if the removed cabinet was active, another one becomes active automatically. This is useful state-change context an agent would not otherwise know.
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 crisp sentences plus a one-line Args block. The main action is front-loaded and the side-effect follows immediately. The Args section is mildly redundant with the input schema's 'name' property, but it is the sole source of parameter meaning, so it earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: the delete action and the active-cabinet failover consequence. The main gap is unspecified edge-case behavior (deleting the last cabinet or a non-existent name), but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 clarify the lone parameter ('name: the cabinet to remove'), which is simple but adequate for a single string identifier. However, it does not specify where the name comes from (e.g., values returned by vk_list_cabinets) or the expected format.
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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a stored cabinet'), clearly distinct from siblings like vk_add_cabinet, vk_use_cabinet, and vk_list_cabinets. The added side-effect clause ('If it was active, another becomes active') further pins down what the tool does.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of edge cases such as what happens when deleting a non-existent or the last remaining cabinet. The semantic difference from siblings is inferable but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.