dingtalk-wiki-mcp

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 this sets an operator unionid for Wiki API access, implying a configuration or authentication step, but doesn't describe whether this is persistent, if it requires specific permissions, what the default behavior is without it, or any error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function and purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes a brief rationale. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter (1 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'setting' the operator entails (e.g., session-based, persistent), what happens after setting it, or how it interacts with sibling Wiki tools. For a configuration/authentication tool, more context on usage and effects is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'unionid' documented as '用户的 unionid' (user's unionid). The description adds that this is '用于访问 Wiki API' (for accessing Wiki API), providing some context about the parameter's purpose, but doesn't elaborate on format, sourcing, or validation. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value.

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 tool's purpose ('设置操作者 unionid') which translates to 'set operator unionid', providing a specific verb ('set') and resource ('operator unionid'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools or explain what 'operator' means in this context. The mention of '用于访问 Wiki API' (for accessing Wiki API) adds some context but remains somewhat vague about the exact function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's 'for accessing Wiki API', which implies a prerequisite or configuration step, but doesn't specify when this should be done relative to other operations or what happens if it's not used. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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