Updates your player profile's name and card background image, or clears the image, using the latest revision; it does not change your current in-game display name.
修改自己的角色资料，profile.back 为角色卡牌背景（头像）的 HTTP(S) 图片地址；back 传空字符串清除头像，省略字段保留原值。原版后端只保存 profile.name，不修改当前角色显示名；加入房间时用 join_game.name 设置名称，对局中重连保留原显示名。仅玩家可用，需最新 revision。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | 最新状态的 revision；过期操作会被拒绝 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: partial-update semantics (omitted fields preserved), empty-string clears the avatar, the backend only persists profile.name and does not alter the display name, and stale revisions are rejected. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Front-loads the purpose, then layers constraints. It is dense but each clause (avatar semantics, name caveat, player-only, revision) earns its place with little 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?
Given a 2-param nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, partial-update rules, permissions, and concurrency. Nothing essential to calling it correctly appears to be missing.
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 only 50%, but the description compensates: it defines profile.back as an HTTP(S) image URL and documents empty-string/omitted behavior, and explains that profile.name is saved without changing the displayed name. Both nested params gain meaning the schema alone lacks.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('修改自己的角色资料') and immediately scopes what 'profile.back' represents. It also distinguishes itself from join_game by clarifying that display names are set via join_game.name, not here, which lets an agent route correctly among siblings.
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?
Gives clear preconditions ('仅玩家可用', '需最新 revision') and an explicit alternative for a related task (use join_game.name to set names). It stops short of enumerating when NOT to call it (e.g., spectator contexts beyond 'player only'), but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.