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. It mentions 'create or update' but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, requires permissions, affects existing data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 or update') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'kinds' are, how they relate to other catalog entities, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Create or update kinds in Software Catalog' clearly states the action (create/update) and resource (kinds in Software Catalog), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'kinds' are or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_entities' or 'get_catalog_kinds', leaving the purpose somewhat 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_catalog_entities' and 'get_catalog_kinds' available, there's no indication of whether this is for initial setup, bulk operations, or specific scenarios, offering minimal usage context.

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