register_endingRegister an ending condition for a narrative project, including required flags, axis thresholds, and when to resolve it (run end, meta checkpoint, or manual).
注册结局条件
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| min_axis | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| resolve_when | No | ||
| thread_phase | No | ||
| requires_flags | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description says nothing about what gets created or modified, what resolve_when semantics mean, thread phase interactions, or side effects on project state. For a mutation tool registering ending conditions, this leaves the agent blind.
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 very short and front-loaded, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. No wasted words, but nothing earns its place either.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no semantic context needed to call this tool 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% across 9 parameters including nested objects (min_axis, requires_flags) and an enum (resolve_when), yet the description provides no parameter meaning. This is a severe gap that the one-line description does nothing to address.
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 merely restates the tool name in Chinese ("注册结局条件" = "register ending condition"), which is a tautology rather than a specific statement of what the tool does. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like compare_endings, register_ending_axis, or map_ending_space, nor does it explain that it creates/persists an ending condition definition.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With ~60 sibling tools including compare_endings, register_ending_axis, and map_ending_space, an agent would need to guess entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.