add_branch_edgeAdd conditional branch edges to game narratives, linking nodes with flags, knowledge, or relationship conditions to control story flow and branching logic.
添加带条件的分支边
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| to_id | Yes | ||
| from_id | Yes | ||
| conditions | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| branch_kind | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about mutation effects, required permissions, side effects, validation, or return values. For a creation tool with nested conditions and no output schema, this is a severe gap.
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 short phrase, which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It is front-loaded but lacks any structure or helpful detail.
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 (7 parameters, nested objects, an enum, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain core concepts an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 0%, and the description mentions only that conditions are involved. It does not explain the 7 parameters, their formats, the meaning of branch_kind (soft/hard), or the structure of conditions. This leaves the agent entirely dependent on the raw 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?
The description '添加带条件的分支边' translates to 'Add a conditional branch edge', which restates the tool name and title rather than adding distinguishing information. It vaguely indicates the resource (branch edge) and a characteristic (with conditions), but provides no clarity on how it differs from close siblings like connect_branch or connect_nodes.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_branch or connect_nodes. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.