link_event_to_sceneAttach a narrative event to a specific scene so game logic can trigger story moments. Use scene_id and event_id to establish the link.
将事件挂到场景
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | ||
| scene_id | Yes | ||
| 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 burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether linking is idempotent, whether it mutates or replaces an existing link, whether it requires an active project, or what side effects occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete 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?
At a single terse clause it is not verbose, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded context, no scope, no constraints, and no routing information an agent could use.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and three parameters, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. It should at minimum state the linking semantics, the role of project_id, and how it differs from sibling linking tools.
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 there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers two of them (event_id, scene_id) via the phrase 'link event to scene', but the optional project_id is entirely unexplained, as are the ID formats and whether project_id is required for scoping.
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 phrase 'link event to scene' states a specific verb (link) and both resources (event, scene), so an agent can infer the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from similarly named siblings such as link_beat_to_thread, connect_nodes, or register_event, leaving the agent to open schemas to disambiguate.
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 statement of when this tool should be used versus alternatives like link_beat_to_thread or register_relationship, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must the scene and event already exist, must a project be active). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.