MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update case attributes' implies a mutation operation, but it does not specify what 'update' entails—whether it modifies existing attributes, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The description lacks critical behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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 a single, efficient phrase: 'Update case attributes'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's action, though it lacks depth, the structure is optimal for its brevity.

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 implied by 'update' (a mutation operation), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'case attributes' are, how the update works, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is assigned because no parameters exist, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Update case attributes' restates the tool name 'create_case_attributes' with a slight variation (using 'Update' instead of 'create'), making it somewhat tautological. It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('case attributes'), but does not clarify what 'case attributes' are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_case_priority' or 'create_case_status', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when it should be applied, or how it relates to other case-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_case_priority', 'create_case_status'). This absence of usage instructions makes it misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

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