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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it updates meta collection objects, without mentioning required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's arguably too brief for a mutation tool, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves a purpose.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails, what fields can be modified, whether there are constraints on updates, or what the tool returns. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 4 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '更新数据地图集合对象' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateMetaCollection' in Chinese. It provides the verb '更新' (update) and resource '数据地图集合对象' (meta collection object), but doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'CreateMetaCollection' or 'DeleteMetaCollection'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to meta collections (CreateMetaCollection, DeleteMetaCollection, AddEntityIntoMetaCollection, RemoveEntityFromMetaCollection, ListMetaCollections, GetMetaCollection, ListEntitiesInMetaCollection), but the description offers no context about when this update operation is appropriate versus creating new collections or modifying entities within collections.

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