Create a new interpretation for a Maimemo vocabulary word with its meaning text, tags, and publication status. Use it to add or publish definitions for existing words in your wordbook.
创建释义
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | 暂无文档 | |
| confirm | Yes | 用户已明确授权本次写入。须为 true。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about write authorization, side effects on existing interpretations, or what the confirm flag implies behaviorally. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.
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?
Four characters is technically brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded structure or useful information to be concise about. A single label is not a structured description.
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 mutating tool with a required confirm authorization flag and nested object parameters, the description omits the write-authorization requirement, the meaning of the required nested interpretation payload, and any return-value expectation (no output schema exists). Rich schema coverage partially compensates, but the description itself is inadequate.
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 the nested interpretation object, voc_id, status enum, and the required confirm flag all documented in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter meaning of its own but the schema carries the load.
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 is '创建释义' — essentially a Chinese restatement of the tool name maimemo_create_interpretation, with no additional specificity. It conveys a verb+resource but adds nothing an agent couldn't infer from the name, and offers no differentiation from siblings like maimemo_update_interpretation or maimemo_delete_interpretation.
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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus maimemo_update_interpretation, maimemo_add_words, or other creation siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.