register_unlockDefine cross-run unlock rules for narrative events, specifying scope, required flags, and unlocked event IDs in a game narrative project.
注册跨局解锁规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| requires_flags | No | ||
| unlocks_event_ids | 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, and it discloses nothing. For a mutation ('register') with six parameters, it says nothing about persistence, whether rules can be overwritten, required permissions, or side effects on runs/campaigns.
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 short phrase is not conciseness but under-specification; it is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is nothing else. The brevity leaves the reader with no actionable content.
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 six parameters at 0% schema coverage, a nested object, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly. It omits scope semantics, flag requirements, and the relationship between unlocks and event ids.
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 six parameters, including an enum (scope: run/meta/campaign/global/slot) and a nested object (requires_flags). The description adds no explanation of id, scope semantics, or how unlocks_event_ids relates to events, so the parameter gap is entirely unaddressed.
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 '注册跨局解锁规则' names a verb (register) and a resource (cross-session unlock rules), which is more informative than a bare tautology. However, it never explains what a cross-session unlock rule is or how it differs from the many sibling register_* tools (register_flag, register_event, register_constraint). An agent gets the category but not the concept.
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_flag, register_event, or register_content_rules, nor any stated preconditions. The only implied usage comes from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.