register_localization_ruleDefine localization text constraints to enforce maximum length per locale for specific fields in a game project.
注册本地化文本约束
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| field | Yes | ||
| locale | No | ||
| max_length | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about idempotency of 'id', behavior on duplicate registration, required project context, or whether the rule applies globally or per-locale. Only the bare verb 'register' hints at a mutating operation.
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 single short phrase is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it omits everything an agent would need to call the tool correctly. Brevity here reflects incompleteness, not economy.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Nothing about required inputs, the effect of registering a constraint, or return behavior is conveyed.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The meanings of 'id', 'field', 'locale', 'max_length', and 'project_id' must be inferred entirely from their names, which is especially risky for 'id' and 'field'.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('register' + 'localization text constraint'), which is enough to know a rule is being created. However, it largely restates the tool name/title and does not distinguish it from neighbors like register_constraint or check_localization, leaving scope 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 register_constraint, register_content_rules, or check_localization. No preconditions, no exclusions, not even an implied workflow context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.