engram_delete_drawer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description says nothing about irreversibility, whether child memories are removed, required permissions, or side effects on wings/rooms/halls. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial disclosure gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, since essential addressing and impact information is omitted.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits addressing semantics, consequences of deletion, and confirmation requirements. It is not misleading, but it is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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% across four required parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It never explains the wing/room/hall/drawer_id addressing hierarchy or whether these are names or IDs, leaving the agent with no guidance for supplying a valid path.

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 names a specific verb (delete) and resource (drawer), so an agent knows the operation is a removal targeted at a drawer entity. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings that also remove or modify drawers (engram_supersede, engram_dispute, engram_correct), and the domain metaphor (château) adds flavor rather than precision.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus engram_supersede, engram_correct, engram_dispute, or engram_get_drawer, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess whether deletion is the right remedy for stale content.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.