Remove a deviation declaration from a specific translation unit, optionally limited to one kind, so localization records stay accurate before writing back or packing the Chinese patch.
删掉一条偏离声明
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | 只删这个种类；留空则删这条译文的全部声明 | |
| project | No | 游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录） | |
| unit_id | Yes | 哪条译文 | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond repeating that something is deleted: it does not explain irreversibility, the kind-empty cascade behavior, permissions, or what exactly happens to affected translation records.
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 wasted words, but for a destructive four-parameter tool it is too terse and omits structure that would make the definition safely usable.
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 mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain deletion scope, side effects, or when the operation should be chosen over related tools.
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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including the special empty-kind behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: delete one deviation declaration. It is clearly different from resource_deviation_add and resource_deviation_list by verb, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus resource_deviation_list or resource_deviation_add, no prerequisites, and no mention of confirmation or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.