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. It states '创建' (create), implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool, as it misses critical details like whether changes are reversible or what the tool returns.

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, '创建数据地图集合对象', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool is a mutation (create) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context. For a 4-parameter tool that creates objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (Name, Type, ParentId, Description) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 '创建数据地图集合对象' (Create data map collection object) states the action (create) and resource (data map collection object), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateMetaCollection' vs 'CreateNode' or 'CreateResource', leaving the specific purpose vague regarding what makes a 'data map collection object' unique.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as when a data map collection is needed, or exclusions, like not using it for other types of objects. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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