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. It discloses that the tool is restricted to MSP customers and describes the action (removal from hierarchy, 30-day trial placement), which implies a mutation with potential billing or access changes. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states availability, and the second describes the action and outcome. It is front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and eligibility. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, response format, error handling) that would help an agent invoke it correctly, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there is 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 clearly states the specific action ('Removes a child organization from the hierarchy') and resource ('master organization'), with additional context about placing the child organization on a 30-day trial. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on organizational hierarchy management, unlike other tools for analytics, monitoring, or resource creation.

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 explicit context: 'Only available for MSP customers' specifies the user eligibility. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other org management tools like 'update_org' or 'delete_org'), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions beyond customer type.

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