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. It states 'move' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, how it affects dependencies, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely modifies workflow locations, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key operational details given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 complexity of a move operation (likely mutating), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling move tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'move' entails operationally, what the tool returns, or how it differs from other move operations. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured safety or output information, this is inadequate.

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 all three parameters (ProjectId, Id, Path) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info 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 '移动数据开发工作流路径' translates to 'Move data development workflow path', which clearly states the action (move) and target (workflow path). However, it doesn't specify what 'move' entails operationally (e.g., relocation within a hierarchy) or distinguish it from similar tools like MoveFunction, MoveNode, and MoveResource that appear to perform analogous operations on different resource types.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the workflow ID), context for moving workflows, or differences from other move operations (MoveFunction, MoveNode, MoveResource). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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