Delete a character from your short-drama project to remove mistakenly created or merged entries. Use this tool to clean up character lists before rendering.
删除一个角色(提取误建/合并时用)。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a use case, with no mention of side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a parenthetical note—and front-loads the action. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical details such as deletion scope (hard vs soft), consequences for references, and post-deletion status/return value. For a destructive tool, this is a notable deficiency.
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%, and the only parameter (character_id) is not explained beyond its type. The description does not indicate how to obtain the ID or confirm it refers to a character, leaving the parameter semantics under-specified.
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 explicitly states 'delete a character' and gives a specific use case ('for mistaken creation/merging'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_character or delete_scene. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.
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?
It provides context on when to use the tool ('use for mistaken creation/merging'), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling set makes this fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.