configure_pacingDefine acts, beats, and emotional depth to configure pacing curves for game narratives. Solve story pacing issues by structuring tension and player engagement.
配置节奏曲线
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| act | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| beats | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this creates or overwrites a pacing curve, whether the write is destructive to existing beats, what permissions are needed, or what happens on partial input.
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?
It is a single short phrase with no filler, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of scope, effect, or constraints for an agent to act on.
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 mutation tool with five parameters, a complex nested beats array, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what a pacing curve is, what shape of data to submit, or what the call will do to project state.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage across 5 parameters, including a nested 'beats' array with 14 sub-fields such as depth, emotion, gameplay_mode, and estimated_duration_minutes. The description explains none of these, leaving the semantics of required id/name and the entire beats structure undocumented.
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 '配置节奏曲线' (configure pacing curve) merely restates the tool name and title in another language, adding no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as analyze_pacing, suggest_beat, or suggest_next_beat, which all concern pacing.
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 analyze_pacing, suggest_beat, or the other pacing-adjacent siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.