save_profileCreate or update a reusable replacement profile for i18n key substitution, allowing preview_replace and replace_file to apply the same configuration by profile name.
在 i18n 平台上创建或更新一个替换配置（config profile），供 replace_file/preview_replace 通过 profileName 复用。需配置环境变量 I18N_API_KEY。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 配置名称 | |
| configJson | Yes | 替换配置 JSON（I18nReplaceConfigDto） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating (create/update) and requires an environment variable for authentication. However, it does not clarify overwrite behavior when the name already exists, validation failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives the reuse context and authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, reuse context, and authentication. Gaps remain around update/overwrite semantics, expected return value, and error conditions, which an agent would need for fully confident invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest context by tying the name to profileName usage and identifying configJson as I18nReplaceConfigDto, but it does not meaningfully explain how to construct or format the configuration beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action (create or update), a specific resource (replacement config/profile on the i18n platform), and how it relates to sibling tools (reused by replace_file/preview_replace via profileName). This clearly distinguishes save_profile from listing, fetching, or applying profiles.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to persist a reusable config for replace_file/preview_replace. It also gives a prerequisite (I18N_API_KEY). However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_profiles/get_profile or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.