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 a removal action, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., cascading impacts). For a mutation 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 tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste—every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the action and target.

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 mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, and provides no context on usage versus siblings. For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no structured support, the description should do more to compensate.

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 ('MetaCollectionId' and 'Id') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, formats, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the action ('移除' meaning 'remove') and target ('实体对象' meaning 'entity object') from a specific resource ('数据地图集合' meaning 'data map collection'). It's specific enough to understand the basic operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteMetaCollection' or 'AddEntityIntoMetaCollection' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 entity to already be in the collection), exclusions, or related tools like 'AddEntityIntoMetaCollection' or 'ListEntitiesInMetaCollection' for context. The agent must infer usage solely from 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.