DataWorks MCP Server

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. While '更新' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success or failure, if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. 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 ('更新数据开发函数信息') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of updating a function (a mutation operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or what the update entails, and doesn't explain the return values or potential side effects. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 parameters (ProjectId, Id, Spec) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between ProjectId and Id or detailing the format of Spec. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 '更新数据开发函数信息' clearly states the action ('更新' meaning 'update') and the resource ('数据开发函数信息' meaning 'data development function information'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateTask' or 'UpdateNode', which also perform updates on different resources, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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, such as needing an existing function to update, or differentiate from similar tools like 'RenameFunction' or 'MoveFunction', which might handle specific aspects of function management. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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