DataWorks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'add' (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as what happens after addition (e.g., success response, error cases), entity type limitations (implied by schema but not emphasized), and how it integrates with sibling tools. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral and output aspects are missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (MetaCollectionId, Id, Remark) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying entity types or remark usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '向数据地图集合中添加实体对象' (Add entity objects to a data map collection) clearly states the action (add) and target (entity objects to collection), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes an 'entity object' and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'RemoveEntityFromMetaCollection' beyond the opposite action. It's functional but lacks specificity about entity types or collection context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing collection or entity), exclusions, or related tools like 'CreateMetaCollection' or 'ListEntitiesInMetaCollection'. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.