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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation 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—just one phrase in Chinese. While efficient, it might be too brief for non-native speakers, though it front-loads the core action. It could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or what the tool returns. For a tool that updates critical project management data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters like 'gmtStart' and 'gmtEnd' or clarifying the 'operatorId' behavior with personal tokens. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('登记实际工时' meaning 'recorded actual effort/hours'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_effort_record' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets updated beyond the generic term 'effort record'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_estimated_effort' or 'list_effort_records'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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