base_wework_create_departmentCreate a new department in Base Wework by providing a department name. Optionally assign owners or pass user credentials to establish the department structure.
Tạo phòng ban mới trên Base Wework.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| owners | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Create' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about permission requirements, idempotency, duplicate handling, or side effects such as ownership assignment. The agent is left to infer all non-obvious behavior.
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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it merely restates the tool name in Vietnamese. It does not front-load any scoping, constraints, or use-case information, so the sentence does not earn its place.
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?
With four parameters, an output schema, and no annotation support, this description is severely incomplete. It omits how authentication is handled (username/access_token), how owner values are normalized, and any prerequisite data like existing departments or project membership. An agent has no way to craft a valid request beyond supplying the required name, and even then it cannot comprehend the optional inputs.
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 mentions no parameter. The schema lists 'name', 'owners', 'username', and 'access_token', but the description does not explain what 'owners' means (string vs array, user IDs vs emails), how 'username' or 'access_token' are used for authentication, or what 'name' constraints exist. The description provides zero help in resolving the semantics that the schema leaves ambiguous.
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 'Tạo phòng ban mới trên Base Wework.' is a direct translation of the tool title 'Base Wework Create Department' — it repeats the same verb and resource without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings such as base_wework_edit_department or base_wework_remove_department. An agent cannot tell from the description how this tool differs from related department tools.
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 create_project, add_department_manager, or other department operations. There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no mention of what information is needed before calling this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.