delete_mnemonPermanently delete a mnemon entry and every relationship that touches it. GM-only on the backend. This cannot be undone — confirm with the user before calling. entryId accepts a hex id or an exact title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entryId | Yes | Mnemon entry ID (hex) or exact title. | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entryId | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by disclosing permanence ('cannot be undone'), cascade effects ('every relationship that touches it'), and the requirement to confirm with the user. These behavioral traits are not visible in the annotations or schema, making the description highly transparent.
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 two compact sentences that front-load the purpose and then deliver the essential constraints (permanence, GM-only, confirmation, entryId format). Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 destructive delete operation, the description covers what is deleted, side effects on relationships, irreversibility, access control, the confirmation step, and parameter formats. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed here. Given the tool's complexity, this description is fully adequate.
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 100%: both parameters have descriptions, and entryId's 'hex or exact title' is already present in the schema. The description repeats this same detail without adding new semantics. CampaignId is not mentioned in the prose, but the schema covers it. Therefore, the description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 'Permanently delete a mnemon entry and every relationship that touches it,' which gives a specific verb (delete), resource (mnemon entry), and scope (plus all relationships). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_mnemon_relationship, which only removes a single relationship.
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 includes critical usage guidance: 'GM-only on the backend' and 'confirm with the user before calling.' It clearly implies this is for whole-entry deletion, but it does not explicitly name an alternative for removing only a relationship (e.g., delete_mnemon_relationship). With that explicit sibling distinction absent, it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The mnemon tools are separated by type (NPC, Location, Quest, etc.), and other domains like guild, forum, and friend management are also well-segmented. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Some minor deviations: 'describe_mnemon_types' instead of 'list_mnemon_types', and 'invite_user_by_email' has a slightly different structure. Overall quite consistent.
With 63 tools, the server is quite heavy. While each tool serves a specific purpose for campaign management, the sheer number may be overwhelming. It is borderline but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (campaigns, sessions, mnemon types, guilds, friends, forum). Notable gaps: no delete_campaign or delete_session, and update_campaign is limited. However, the core workflows are well-covered.