Remove a finalized character or object permanently from Continuity. The deletion is irreversible; the original image cannot be regenerated.
删掉一个已定妆的角色或物件。不可逆: 定妆图不可复现, 重定出来是另一个。
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive trait: the operation is irreversible and the finalized image cannot be reproduced, so re-finalizing yields a different subject. It omits confirmation requirements, permission needs, and whether dependent assets (images, sheets) are also removed.
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 sentences, no filler, with the destructive/irreversibility warning front-loaded right after the action statement. Every clause earns its place.
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 explained, and the irreversibility warning covers the most important behavior. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should say more about what else is destroyed and how it relates to delete_actor.
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% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description adds nothing about it — it never clarifies whether 'name' is a subject name, an ID, or whether it must match exactly. For a destructive identifier parameter, leaving it undocumented is a real gap.
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 resource (一个已定妆的角色或物件 – a finalized character or object), with scope that implicitly distinguishes it from delete_actor by covering subjects of both kinds. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, though; it never names delete_actor or explains why a 'subject' differs from an 'actor'.
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?
The qualifier '已定妆的' implies a precondition (only subjects whose look has been finalized) and '重定出来是另一个' hints that re-creation is an option, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as delete_actor. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.