UpdateDataQualityEvaluationTask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '更新' (update) implying a mutation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether updates are partial or full replacements, side effects (e.g., on running tasks), error handling, or response format. For a complex mutation tool with 11 parameters and nested objects, this is critically inadequate.

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 concise (one Chinese sentence plus an MCP Resource note) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first sentence is too vague to be helpful, and the second is procedural boilerplate not directly about the tool's function. While brief, it fails to front-load essential context about the tool's purpose or usage.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'update' entails, the scope of changes, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The MCP Resource note doesn't compensate for these gaps. For a mutation tool in a data quality system, this leaves the agent guessing about critical operational 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in Chinese (e.g., '项目空间Id' for ProjectId, '数据质量监控对象' for Target). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '更新数据质量监控' (Update data quality monitoring) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateDataQualityEvaluationTask' in Chinese. It lacks specificity about what aspects of data quality monitoring are being updated (e.g., rules, triggers, notifications) and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'UpdateDataQualityRule' or 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTask'. The mention of an MCP Resource is procedural guidance, not purpose clarification.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing evaluation task ID), differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateDataQualityRule' (which updates individual rules) or 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTask', or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate (e.g., modifying triggers vs. rules). The MCP Resource note is about tool invocation, not usage context.

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