register_character_arcRegister a character's emotional arc by defining ordered story points, so you can track how their emotions evolve across campaign events and scenes.
注册角色情感弧光
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| points | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about behavior. It does not say whether this creates or overwrites an arc, what scope semantics mean, whether related entities must pre-exist, or what happens on conflict.
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 short and front-loaded, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. A single duplicated title phrase cannot earn its place as the whole description.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested points array, an enum-constrained scope, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot correctly construct a call from this.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The nested points array (with order, emotion -10..10, trait, beat_id, event_id, scene_id) and the scope enum are entirely 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 is a literal translation of the tool title ('注册角色情感弧光' = 'Register Character Arc'), so it restates rather than clarifies. It names a verb and resource but offers no scope, no distinguishing detail from siblings like analyze_character_arc or scaffold_minimal_arc.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent has no signal on when registration is expected versus analysis (analyze_character_arc) or scaffolding (scaffold_minimal_arc).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.