CreatePermissionApplyOrder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '创建权限申请单' implies a write operation (creating an application), but it doesn't specify whether this submits for approval, requires admin review, has side effects (e.g., pending state), or what happens on failure. It mentions an MCP Resource for examples, but this doesn't clarify behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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 very brief with two sentences, but the second sentence is a meta-comment about MCP Resources that doesn't contribute to tool understanding. The first sentence is under-specified rather than concise. While not verbose, it fails to front-load essential information, making it inefficient for its purpose.

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 a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., project settings). The high schema coverage helps, but for a complex write operation, more context is needed about how the creation process works and what to expect after invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., ApplyUserIds, ApplyReason, ApplyObject). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 '创建权限申请单' (Create permission application order) is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese. It doesn't specify what resource the permission applies to (MaxCompute tables), what actions are involved (Select, Describe, etc.), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'ApprovePermissionApplyOrder' or 'ListPermissionApplyOrders'. The purpose is vague beyond the literal translation of the tool name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific project settings like labelSecurity), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'ApprovePermissionApplyOrder' for approval or 'GetPermissionApplyOrderDetail' for details. The second sentence is a meta-instruction about MCP Resources, not usage guidance for the tool itself.

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