Permanently delete a voice-cast character from the Continuity server. This action is irreversible; the reference audio cannot be reproduced, and re-casting creates a different identity.
删掉一个已铸声的角色。不可逆: 参考音不可复现, 重铸出来是另一个人。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| kind | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| error_code | No | ||
| files_removed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible (不可逆) and explains the concrete consequence that the reference voice cannot be reproduced and a re-created actor would be a different person. It omits permission/auth requirements, but the destructive consequence is unusually well articulated.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the risk. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, irreversibility and consequence; the main gap is any guidance on how to identify the actor via the name parameter.
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?
There is one required parameter (name) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about it whatsoever – no format, matching rule, or identifier guidance. With coverage this low the description should compensate and does not.
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 (删掉/delete) and a qualified resource (一个已铸声的角色 – a voice-cast actor), which is more precise than a bare 'delete actor'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_subject, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_subject or list_actors, and no preconditions for invoking it. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.