Alibaba Cloud RDS OpenAPI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'modify' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. The minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a tool that likely modifies cloud infrastructure.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. The main line 'modify db instance description' is redundant, while the Args/Returns sections add some organization but minimal value. It's not verbose, but the information density is low—each part could be more informative.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, and offers minimal parameter guidance. The Returns section 'dict[str, Any]: The response' is particularly unhelpful without 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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it lists parameters in the Args section with brief labels, it doesn't explain what region_id, db_instance_id, or description represent beyond their names. No format requirements, constraints, or examples are provided, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'modify db instance description' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating it without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of database instance (RDS) or what aspect is being modified beyond the name. While it mentions RDS in the Args section, the main description lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like modify_db_instance_spec or modify_parameter.

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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like describe_db_instance_attribute for reading and modify_db_instance_spec for other modifications, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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