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. '创建' (create) implies a write operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, what happens if the user already exists in the workspace, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's perfectly concise and front-loaded, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool that creates workspace members with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, potential side effects, or how this differs from related tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in Chinese. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 '创建工作空间成员' clearly states the action (create) and resource (workspace member) in Chinese. It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GrantMemberProjectRoles' or 'RevokeMemberProjectRoles' which might have overlapping purposes.

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 tool is appropriate versus other member management tools like 'GrantMemberProjectRoles', or any context about required permissions or system state.

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