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. It states the tool updates metadata, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 metadata (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and what the update entails, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters (Id and Readme) in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('更新' meaning update) and target ('数据地图数据表的业务元数据' meaning data map table business metadata), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what '业务元数据' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like UpdateColumnBusinessMetadata or other metadata update tools, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for updating business metadata of tables, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to similar tools like UpdateColumnBusinessMetadata or UpdateDataQualityRule, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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