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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 very concise with just one sentence plus a bracketed context hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' feels like metadata that could be integrated more smoothly, and the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the update does, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies applications in what appears to be a complex DevOps environment, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (organizationId, appName, ownerId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's 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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing application'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what aspects of the application are updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_orchestration' or 'update_app_tag' that also update application-related entities. The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but isn't specific enough for full clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_application' and 'get_application', the description doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., an application must exist) or contrast with other update tools (e.g., 'update_app_orchestration' for orchestration vs. this for general updates). This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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