DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '数据质量监控' refers to (task vs. rule vs. instance), doesn't warn about consequences, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The context signals show this is a 2-parameter tool, but the description doesn't adequately address its 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 both parameters clearly documented in Chinese ('DataWorks工作空间的ID' and '数据质量监控ID'). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's clarity about what's being deleted slightly enhances understanding, warranting a 4.

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 '删除数据质量监控' (Delete data quality monitoring) clearly states the verb ('删除' - delete) and resource ('数据质量监控' - data quality monitoring), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is being deleted (a task, rule, or instance) or differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteDataQualityRule, leaving some ambiguity.

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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (DeleteDataQualityRule, DeleteDataServiceApi, etc.), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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