MCP Datadog 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. 'Unassign case' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to the previously assigned entity, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

While 'Unassign case' is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The description fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage. A single word or short phrase doesn't earn its place when it leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'create' and 'unassign') with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.

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 'Unassign case' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_case_unassign'. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., which case, from whom), nor does it clarify what 'create' means in this context versus other unassignment operations. While it indicates the general action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential alternatives.

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 are sibling tools like 'create_case_assign' and 'create_case_archive', but the description doesn't mention when unassignment is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what happens after unassignment. This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for proper tool selection.

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