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 states 'Create' which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Create an archive in your organization', which is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's under-specified given the tool's likely complexity (creating a logs configuration archive), so it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's name suggests complexity (logs config archives), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an archive entails, how it's used, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool in a logs configuration context, more context is needed 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, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details.

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 an archive in your organization' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('archive'), but it's vague about what type of archive (logs configuration archive based on tool name) and lacks specificity about the scope or purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_logs_config_archive_readers' or 'create_logs_config_custom_destinations', which are related but different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives' for related operations. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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