Delete a saved Wildberries seller cabinet. If the removed cabinet was active, another cabinet 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?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: deleting the active cabinet causes another cabinet to become active. This is valuable state-change information the agent would not infer from annotations alone.
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 extremely concise, with no filler or redundant content. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional behavioral note is short and directly relevant.
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?
Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and simple single-parameter signature, this description is adequate. It covers the operation and a key side effect. Missing error cases are not essential for basic 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 description coverage is 0%, but the docstring explicitly defines the single parameter: 'name: the cabinet to remove.' This gives the parameter semantic meaning beyond its type and required status, which is sufficient for this simple tool.
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.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinct from add/list/update operations. It also adds a relevant behavioral detail about active-cabinet state that differentiates it from a generic delete description.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling operations like wb_add_cabinet, wb_set_key, or wb_remove_cabinet, nor does it describe preconditions or situations where this tool should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.