DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states '更新任务' (Update task), which implies a mutation but gives no details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if updates affect running instances), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a complex update tool with 19 parameters.

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 under-specified with only '更新任务' (Update task), which is not conciseness but a lack of content. The additional note about an 'MCP Resource' is irrelevant to tool understanding and adds clutter without value, failing to front-load useful information.

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 complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the scope of updates, behavioral implications, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly beyond the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'Id' as task ID, 'Trigger' with detailed subproperties). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 where 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 '更新任务' (Update task) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'UpdateTask' in Chinese. It does not specify what resource is being updated (e.g., a task in a workflow system) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'BatchUpdateTasks' or 'UpdateTaskInstances', leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'BatchUpdateTasks' for multiple updates or 'UpdateTaskInstances' for instance-level modifications, offering no usage context.

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