mempalace_delete_drawer

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it specifies 'soft-delete' (not a hard delete), notes the removal of semantic index entries, and emphasizes irreversibility via the MCP API. This adds meaningful context to the destructive and idempotent hints.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes critical caveats (soft-delete, index removal, irreversibility). Every element earns its place with no waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential aspects: scope, nature of the delete, impact on indexes, and irreversibility. It is complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter drawer_id, including its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'soft-delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'tenant-scoped drawer', while also specifying the additional effect of removing semantic index entries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mempalace_delete_tunnel and mempalace_update_drawer.

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 context is clear: this tool is for soft-deleting a drawer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the 'cannot be undone' warning implies caution. This gives clear context without explicit exclusions.

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