DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. '删除任务' only indicates a deletion action without any information about permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to dependent resources, rate limits, or error conditions. This is completely inadequate for a destructive operation 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?

While technically concise with just two Chinese characters, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about a destructive operation. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to earn its place by being insufficiently informative.

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?

This is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the complete lack of structured behavioral information, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets deleted, under what conditions, what the consequences are, or what the response looks like.

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 100%, with both parameters (Id and ProjectEnv) having descriptions in Chinese ('任务ID' and '项目环境'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 '删除任务' (Delete task) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'DeleteTask' without providing additional context. It doesn't specify what type of task is being deleted, what system it operates in, or how it differs from other deletion tools like DeleteWorkflow or DeleteTaskInstance. While the verb+resource structure is present, it lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (DeleteAlertRule, DeleteDataQualityEvaluationTask, DeleteWorkflow, etc.), but the description offers no context about which deletion operation this performs, what prerequisites exist, or when other deletion tools might be more appropriate.

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