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 it modifies properties, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties not mentioned, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with a single phrase ('修改任务实例属性'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, it efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (mutation operation with nested parameters in 'TaskInstances'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in relation to sibling tools.

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 both parameters ('Comment' and 'TaskInstances') and their nested properties thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '修改任务实例属性' (Modify task instance properties) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateTaskInstances' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool updates task instances, it doesn't specify what properties can be modified or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'UpdateTask' or 'BatchUpdateTasks'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 that modify tasks or task instances (e.g., 'UpdateTask', 'BatchUpdateTasks', 'RerunTaskInstances'), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or any exclusions.

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