Propose a correction to an existing translation term or fact, queuing it for review before it takes effect.
提一条更正（改已有的译名 / 某条事实）：先排队，采用之前不生效
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new | Yes | 改成什么 | |
| why | No | 为什么（人要看得懂的一句话） | |
| what | Yes | 改哪一栏：key（译名）/ profile（事实） | |
| index | No | 改列表里的第几条（改写法的译名时可不给） | |
| 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 | |
| writing | Yes | 改哪一个写法（profile 那一栏给行身份） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the correction is queued and is not effective until adopted – useful context that annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing auth/limits or what the queued entry looks like.
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, front-loaded line that states the action, its scope and its deferred-effect semantics with zero filler. Nothing to trim.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus full-coverage schema cover the essentials, and the queuing behavior is disclosed. It could still say more about the result of a successful proposal or the project/workdir defaults, but nothing critical is 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the key/profile enum. The description only echoes the 'change existing translation/fact' framing and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema – baseline 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?
Names a specific action (提一条更正) with an explicit scope – correcting an existing 译名 or 事实 – which separates it from resource_term_add (new terms) and the pending/adopt workflow. The purpose is clear, though it never names the actual sibling tools it routes between.
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?
States the usage context (amend an existing translation/fact) and the key precondition that the change queues first and only takes effect on adoption, which implies the follow-up step. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. resource_term_remove / pending_adopt) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.