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 fails to mention that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether updates are partial or complete, how conflicts are handled, or what the response looks like. For a complex update tool with 12 parameters, this lack of behavioral information is a critical 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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first part '更新工作流' is a tautology, and the second part about the MCP Resource doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The structure doesn't front-load essential information, and the sentences don't earn their place by adding value.

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 (12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a workflow is in this context, what fields can be updated, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to existing workflow instances, or what the tool returns. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output 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. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 '更新工作流' (Update workflow) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'UpdateWorkflow' without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what aspects of a workflow are updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from other workflow-related tools like 'UpdateWorkflowDefinition' or 'UpdateTask'.

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, distinguish from sibling tools like 'UpdateWorkflowDefinition' or 'UpdateTask', or indicate appropriate contexts. The only additional text references an MCP Resource for examples, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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