register_entityRegister canon entities such as characters, locations, items, and factions to keep game narrative data consistent and available for validation and export.
注册 canon 实体（角色/地点/道具）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | 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 implies a mutation ('注册' / register) but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, idempotency, or whether the entity affects downstream canon checks, which is significant for a registration tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured for the tool's complexity.
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?
A 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs more than one short sentence. The description omits parameter meanings, behavior, and disambiguation from the register_* family, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely names three of the five enum values for 'type' (character/location/item) but omits faction/other and gives no meaning to id, name, tags, project_id, or description.
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?
States a specific verb (register) and resource (canon entity) with illustrative subtypes (character/location/item). It does not differentiate this tool from the many register_* siblings such as register_fact, register_glossary_term, or register_character_arc, so an agent cannot easily tell which registry to target.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like register_fact and register_glossary_term, the agent has no signal for choosing register_entity over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.