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 the Roles API link but doesn't describe what 'adds' entails—whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a tool that likely modifies access controls, this is a significant gap.

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 states the core purpose and includes a relevant API documentation link. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the link to the end for better readability.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a mutating operation (adding roles). It doesn't explain the expected outcome, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, earning a baseline score above 3 for compensating with no required 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 clearly states the action ('Adds a read role') and the target resource ('to an archive'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_archives' by focusing on role assignment rather than archive creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing archive), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_archive_readers' in the sibling list.

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