DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing alarm rules, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The MCP Resource mention adds minimal context but doesn't address core behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another about the MCP Resource. While efficient, the second sentence about examples doesn't directly help the agent understand the tool's function and could be considered somewhat extraneous, preventing a perfect score.

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 an update tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what errors might occur, or how to interpret results. The mention of an MCP Resource for examples doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps in a mutation operation context.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating with extra insights.

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 states '更新数据集成同步任务告警规则' (Update data integration sync task alarm rules), which provides a clear verb ('更新' - update) and resource ('告警规则' - alarm rules). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateAlertRule' or 'CreateDIAlarmRule', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 like 'CreateDIAlarmRule' or 'UpdateAlertRule'. The description only mentions the tool has an 'MCP Resource' with examples, but this doesn't help the agent understand the appropriate context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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