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 implies a destructive mutation ('remove'), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects task execution, or what happens if dependencies are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and 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?

The description is a single, efficient phrase ('移除任务实例的依赖关系') that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the impact of removal, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps that could lead to incorrect usage. For a tool that modifies dependencies, more context is needed to ensure safe operation.

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 clear parameter descriptions in Chinese ('任务实例ID', '上游任务实例ID列表', '备注信息'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but 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 '移除任务实例的依赖关系' (Remove task instance dependencies) clearly states the action (remove) and target (task instance dependencies), providing a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteTask' or 'DeleteTaskInstance' that might also affect tasks, nor does it specify what type of dependencies are being removed (e.g., upstream/downstream, execution dependencies).

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., whether the task instance must be in a specific state), exclusions, or related tools like 'ListUpstreamTaskInstances' or 'ListDownstreamTaskInstances' that might help identify dependencies before removal. Without this, an agent might misuse it.

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