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. '创建部署单' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this triggers immediate deployment, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 ('[application delivery] 创建部署单') but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with complex parameters and no annotations. The single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient context.

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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the operational impact of creating a change order. For a mutation tool in a crowded sibling space, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the purpose of organizationId, appName, or the changeOrder object structure. With 3 parameters and nested objects, the description fails to compensate for the 33% coverage gap, maintaining the baseline 3.

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 '[application delivery] 创建部署单' clearly states the action ('创建' meaning 'create') and resource ('部署单' meaning 'change order/deployment order') in the context of application delivery. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_change_request' by specifying deployment orders rather than change requests, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 many sibling tools like 'create_change_request', 'create_application', and various deployment-related tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for creating change orders.

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