Delete a stored Yandex Market cabinet by name. If the removed cabinet is active, another stored 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.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: if the removed cabinet was active, another becomes active. This is a significant side effect an agent could not infer from the schema 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 only two sentences plus a single-line Args explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and the key side effect, with zero fluff or repetition. Every word serves a purpose.
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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the main behavior and side-effect, and the output schema exists. However, it lacks any guidance on error conditions, prerequisite credentials, or what constitutes a valid 'name', and it neither includes nor disclaims platform scope explicitly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. The line 'name: the cabinet to remove' explicates the input, which is useful and clear. It does not cover what happens when the name doesn't exist, but for the sole required parameter, the core semantics are provided.
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 opens with a clear verb-plus-resource pairing (‘Delete a stored cabinet’) and adds a non-obvious consequence for active cabinets. This clearly separates it from cabinet add/use/list operations; the ym_ prefix in the name handles cross-platform differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it or prerequisites. The only implied usage is removing a cabinet, but no context or exclusion rules are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.