register_factDefines objective canon facts with scope and entity links for a game narrative engine, ensuring story consistency across runs, campaigns, and global state.
注册客观事实（canon）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| entity_ids | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| player_knowledge_scope | 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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the name — no idempotency/duplicate handling, no validation against existing canon, no permission requirements, and no effect of the scope fields. For a canon-mutating registration tool 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?
It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but this reflects severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded explanation of what a 'fact' is or how it differs from a sibling registration.
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 canon-registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, a nine-character phrase is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required behavioral semantics, scope meaning, or return expectations from what is given.
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 exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Critically, the scope and player_knowledge_scope enums (run/meta/campaign/global/slot) carry meaning the description never disambiguates, and required id/statement semantics are 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 phrase '注册客观事实（canon）' conveys a verb (register) and a resource (objective fact/canon), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many register_* siblings (register_entity, register_event, register_flag, register_relationship) nor from check_canon, which shares the 'canon' concept, leaving the boundary ambiguous.
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 such as check_canon or the other register_* tools, and no preconditions are stated. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'canon'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.