Write translations back into a game to generate a translation layer, filling only missing entries without altering existing translations.
把译文写回游戏，生成翻译层（默认只填空缺，不动产物里已有的译文）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| overwrite_existing | No | 显式声明：用当前译文覆盖产物里已有的译文（默认只填空缺） |
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, indicating a potentially destructive write operation. The description adds context by stating the default behavior of filling only gaps and not overwriting existing translations. However, it does not go into further detail about what gets destroyed, permissions required, or side effects beyond the overwrite behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes a key default behavior. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidance. It could benefit from more context about the writeback process and its implications, especially given the destructive hint.
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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description reiterates the default behavior regarding overwriting but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
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: writing translations back into the game and generating a translation layer. This is a clear operation, but it lacks differentiation from similar tools like 'pack' or 'translate'. Without sibling differentiation, the purpose is clear in isolation but not relatively.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'translate' or 'pack'. The default behavior (filling gaps only) is mentioned, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.