AlibabaCloud DevOps 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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words plus a bracketed context hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' feels somewhat cryptic and doesn't clearly earn its place in such a minimal description. Overall it's efficient but 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this tool fits within the broader application tag management workflow. Given the complexity of creating resources in what appears to be a DevOps/application delivery system, more context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema (organizationId, name, color with color value examples). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline 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 states 'Create an application tag' which clearly indicates a creation action on a specific resource (application tag). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_tag' or 'search_app_tags' beyond the basic verb. The bracketed '[application delivery]' provides some context but doesn't fully specify the tool's unique purpose within the sibling set.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization context), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_app_tag' or 'search_app_tags'. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.

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