Remove a dependency edge between two regions in a game localization graph by providing source and target region IDs, so agents can adjust translation order or dependencies.
删掉一条依赖边
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | 起点：区域 id | |
| target | No | 终点：区域 id | |
| project | No | 游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录） | |
| workdir | No | 工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the delete is reversible, what happens if the edge does not exist, or what validation/auth constraints apply to a mutation.
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?
A single terse phrase with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though so short that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
With 4 parameters, none marked required, and no output schema, the description should clarify which inputs are needed and what the result is. It provides none of that, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke a destructive mutation confidently.
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%, with every parameter (source, target, project, workdir) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as which of source/target are mandatory or the id format expected.
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 (删掉/delete) and resource (依赖边/dependency edge), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like graph_depend (add edge) or graph_dependencies, leaving the agent to infer directionality of the operation.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool versus graph_depend, graph_node, or graph_dependencies based purely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.