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. It states 'delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or provides confirmation. 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 in Chinese that directly states the action. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation, with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., 'Permanently delete a meta-collection by its ID'), but as-is, it's concise and structured.

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's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling, nor does it explain return values. For a mutation tool with no structured support, the description should do more to fill these gaps.

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 the parameter 'Id' documented as '集合对象Id' (collection object Id). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details.

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 '删除数据地图集合对象' (Delete data map collection object) states the action (delete) and target (data map collection object), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'data map collection object' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteMetaCollection vs. DeleteDataServiceApi or DeleteDataSource, which might delete different resource types. It avoids tautology by not just restating 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. There are many sibling deletion tools (e.g., DeleteDataServiceApi, DeleteDataSource), but it doesn't specify that this is for meta-collections specifically or mention prerequisites like needing the collection ID. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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