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 describes what the tool does (updates restriction policies) and provides resource/relation details, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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 well-structured with clear sections ('Supported resources', 'Supported relations for resources') and uses bullet points and a table for readability. It's appropriately sized for the complexity, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core action more prominently before the details.

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 (updates policies) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and the resource scope, but lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), error handling, and expected outputs. For a tool that modifies access controls, this is a moderate gap in contextual understanding.

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 (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool updates (restriction policies) and listing supported resources and relations, which provides context beyond the empty schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters, though it doesn't need to explain parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates the restriction policy associated with a resource.' This is a specific verb ('Updates') + resource ('restriction policy') combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'delete_restriction_policy' or 'get_restriction_policy' that exist in the sibling list, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implicit usage guidance by listing supported resources and their relations, suggesting when this tool might be applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete a restriction policy), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list includes 'delete_restriction_policy' and 'get_restriction_policy', but no comparison is made.

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