AlibabaCloud DevOps 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. 'Create a change request' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether this triggers workflows or approvals, what happens to existing resources, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a creation tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 two words plus a bracketed context. While this represents efficient communication, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity. The front-loaded '[application delivery]' context is helpful, but the core description 'Create a change request' is too minimal to be truly helpful for agent decision-making.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 7 required, mutation operation), absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what validation occurs, or how this tool fits within the broader change management workflow. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's purpose. However, with 100% schema description coverage (all 9 parameters have descriptions in Chinese), the schema carries the heavy lifting. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description adds no additional semantic context about how parameters relate to each other or their collective purpose.

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 'Create a change request' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_appstack_change_request'. It adds minimal value by specifying '[application delivery]' as a domain context, but fails to clearly articulate what a 'change request' entails or what resource it creates. Compared to siblings like 'create_change_request' and 'create_change_order', it doesn't distinguish its specific purpose within the change management system.

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. With multiple sibling tools for creating various entities (change requests, change orders, applications, branches, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from similar tools like 'create_change_request'. The agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool over others.

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