MCP Datadog Server

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

Annotations are minimal and do not provide hints like readOnly or destructive, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Creates', implying a write operation, which is consistent with the 'create_' prefix. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds little beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on a placeholder without explaining the tool's purpose or context. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity to convey useful information beyond the obvious.

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 the tool name (involving webhooks, configurations, and custom variables), the description is inadequate. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description does not explain what the endpoint is for, how it integrates, or what it returns. For a creation tool in a rich ecosystem, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and behavior.

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 mentions `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>` as a placeholder, which might hint at a required input, but since the schema indicates no parameters, this is confusing but not penalized heavily. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'Creates an endpoint with the name `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>`' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables' without clarifying what the endpoint does, what resource it creates, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks'. It mentions a placeholder but lacks specificity about the verb and resource context.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks'), leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among similar creation tools in the list.

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