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 burden. '移动' (move) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the move is reversible, what happens to dependencies, rate limits, or error conditions. It's a bare statement of function without operational context.

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?

Extremely concise single phrase with zero waste. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently complete—it could benefit from one more clarifying sentence without losing conciseness.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity of moving nodes in a development environment, more context is needed about success criteria and impact.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (ProjectId, Id, Path) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for Id or Path constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 '移动数据开发节点路径' (Move data development node path) states the action (move) and resource (data development node path), but is vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like MoveFunction, MoveResource, or MoveWorkflowDefinition. It doesn't specify whether this moves nodes within a project or workspace, or what 'data development node' precisely means.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like RenameNode or CreateNode. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ProjectId or Id), exclusions, or typical scenarios for moving nodes versus other operations.

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