create_beat_sheetBatch create beat sheets by Act and depth to structure narrative curves. Specify multiple depths and default types to generate story beats.
按 Act/深度批量创建节奏板
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| act | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| depths | Yes | ||
| curve_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| default_type | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a write operation (though 'create' implies it), what permissions are required, whether it overwrites existing data, or what happens with partially specified parameters. The description offers no behavioral context beyond the implied creation.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and qualifiers. It is efficient and contains no wasted words, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing details.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as prerequisites, the expected input format, the effect of batch creation, and how this tool fits with siblings. An agent would need to guess many details to invoke it 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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions Act and '深度' (depth), which loosely correspond to the 'act' and 'depths' parameters, but does not explain the required 'curve_id', 'name', 'project_id', or the enum values for 'default_type'. The description fails to provide meaning for most parameters.
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 '按 Act/深度批量创建节奏板' states a verb (create), a resource (节奏板/beat sheet), and a qualifier (by Act/depth, batch). It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like register_beat or update_event by emphasizing batch creation, but the relationship to sibling tools like register_beat is not clarified. Purpose is vague enough that an agent may not fully differentiate it.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_beat, update_event, or configure_pacing. The tool is one among many beat-related siblings, but no context is given for when batch creation is appropriate. No when-not or alternative-tool instructions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.