Removes a term entry from a game localization glossary to maintain translation consistency. Specify the term by any spelling, and optionally provide a reason for the change log.
删除一行（按任一写法）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| why | No | 为什么删（记进变更日志） | |
| source | Yes | 任一写法 | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only '按任一写法', which is also in the source parameter schema and does not describe irreversibility, matching behavior, or effects on references.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is too terse for a destructive multi-parameter tool; conciseness here comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
Incomplete for a destructive resource mutation: it does not clarify what a resource term is, deletion scope, or side effects. Annotations and schema cover some safety and parameter detail, but the description leaves the agent with insufficient context to call 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%, so baseline is 3. The description's '按任一写法' mirrors the source parameter description and adds no syntax or matching details beyond the schema.
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 action (删除一行) but does not name the resource or domain; 'row' is ambiguous in a glossary/termbase context. It distinguishes from add/list siblings only by verb, not by scope.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not route the agent among resource_term_pending_drop, resource_term_import, or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.