DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '创建' (create) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent (despite ClientToken parameter suggesting it might be), rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The MCP Resource mention doesn't add behavioral context.

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 - just one Chinese sentence stating the purpose, followed by an English note about the MCP Resource. While the MCP Resource note adds some length, the core description is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the bilingual nature creates minor structural awkwardness.

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?

For a complex creation tool with 8 parameters (4 required), nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, the response format, error conditions, or system implications. The schema handles parameter documentation, but the description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for a mutation operation of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter documentation in Chinese. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 - the schema does all the work, and the description doesn't compensate or add additional semantic context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 states '创建数据集成同步任务告警规则' (Create data integration sync task alarm rule), which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (alarm rule for data integration sync tasks). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateAlertRule' or 'UpdateDIAlarmRule' - it's unclear how this specific alarm rule creation differs from general alert rule creation or updating existing DI alarm rules.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of 'CreateAlertRule' or 'UpdateDIAlarmRule', or any context about required permissions or system state. The only additional text references an MCP Resource for examples, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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