base_wework_add_department_managerAssign a department manager to a specific department using department ID and owner identifiers, enabling role-based access and oversight.
Thêm người quản lý (Department Manager) vào phòng ban.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| owners | Yes | ||
| username | No | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose whether adding an existing manager is idempotent, how duplicate owners are handled, whether this overwrites existing managers, or any authorization/access-token expectations.
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 gets directly to the point. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, though its brevity comes at the cost of needed details.
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 tool with four parameters, two required, and zero annotation coverage, this description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to invoke it correctly, what the required 'id' and 'owners' mean, or any output/return behavior, leaving too much to inference.
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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. It does not clarify that 'id' refers to a department, what format 'owners' should take (user IDs vs names), or how 'username' and 'access_token' are used.
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 Vietnamese description directly states the action ('Thêm' = add) and the resource ('người quản lý vào phòng ban' = department manager to department), so an agent can tell this is an add-operation for department managers. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as base_wework_add_project_manager or base_wework_remove_department_manager, relying on the resource in the name.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_department_manager or set_project_manager. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context notes, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.