DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '修改数据源' (Modify data source) implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the operation completes. This is completely inadequate for a mutation tool.

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?

While technically concise with just three Chinese characters, this is a case of severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behaviors to expect, or what results are returned. The agent would be operating almost blindly with only the parameter schema as guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 5 parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 '修改数据源' (Modify data source) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateDataSource' without providing any meaningful elaboration. It doesn't specify what aspects of a data source are modified, what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'CreateDataSource' or 'CloneDataSource'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from similar tools like 'CreateDataSource' (for initial creation) or 'CloneDataSource' (for duplication). The agent receives zero usage direction.

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