DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '删除' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions, or response format to help the agent understand the consequences and requirements of invocation. The current description is too minimal for safe and effective use.

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 (the single parameter 'Id' is documented as '血缘关系ID'), so the schema already provides the necessary parameter information. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 '删除数据地图血缘关系' clearly states the action (删除/delete) and the resource (数据地图血缘关系/data map lineage relationship). It's specific about what gets deleted. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like DeleteAlertRule or DeleteDataQualityRule, which would require mentioning it specifically targets lineage relationships.

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 (e.g., needing the relationship ID), when not to use it, or what happens after deletion. With sibling tools like GetLineageRelationship and ListLineageRelationships available, the description should ideally indicate this is for removal after identification.

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