Create a custom example sentence for a vocabulary word in your Maimemo account, saving the phrase with its translation, tags, and origin to your learning materials.
创建例句
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so safety behavior is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as required confirmation, side effects, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also 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?
The description is extremely short and front-loads the core action, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. For a destructive tool with nested required parameters and a confirmation flag, a four-character description does not earn its place as sufficient documentation.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, nested required body object, required confirm flag, destructive annotation, and many CRUD siblings, the description is incomplete. The schema and annotations carry much of the burden, but the description does not explain when to use this tool, what it writes, or how confirm interacts with the call.
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%, and the schema documents the nested phrase fields and the required confirm flag. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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?
The description '创建例句' states a specific verb and resource: create an example sentence. It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling actions like list, update, and delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or explain scope beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling naming conventions alone. This is minimal, non-misleading but insufficient for a destructive write operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.