register_constraintRegister mutex or requires constraints to block conflicting story events and enforce needed dependencies across narrative scopes.
注册 mutex / requires 约束
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| items | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| target | 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. It does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, validation rules, conflict handling, permissions, or what registration actually changes in the system.
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, so it avoids bloat, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the structure needed to communicate purpose, usage, or behavior for a 7-parameter tool.
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% schema description coverage, and seven parameters, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would need to infer nearly everything about safe and correct invocation from the bare schema alone.
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 'mutex / requires', which is already fully specified by the schema enum. Six other parameters (id, items, scope, source, target, project_id) receive no explanation whatsoever, leaving critical semantics 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 states a specific verb+resource ('注册 ... 约束') and names the two constraint types ('mutex / requires'). It is clear what the tool broadly does, but it does not differentiate this tool from the many other register_* siblings.
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, nor any prerequisites or context for choosing between mutex and requires. The description only states what is registered, leaving all usage conditions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.