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 behavioral traits such as the optional configuration relationship, rules relationship constraints (must be null or empty array), and that the new group is ordered last within the configuration. This adds useful context about creation behavior, though it doesn't cover aspects like permissions, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is reasonably informative.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose ('Create a scanning group') and uses four concise sentences to cover constraints and ordering. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 there are no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a creation tool by explaining relationships and ordering. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or what the response contains, which could be important for a mutation operation. It is complete enough for basic use but has gaps in full operational context.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that the request 'MAY include a configuration relationship' and specifies rules relationship constraints, which adds semantic meaning about what can be included in the request body. This effectively addresses the lack of parameters, though it doesn't detail exact parameter names or formats.

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 ('Create a scanning group') and specifies the resource ('scanning group'), which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning configuration and rules relationships, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group' or 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group'. This provides a specific verb+resource but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context by detailing constraints on configuration and rules relationships (e.g., 'rules cannot be created at the same time'), which suggests when to use this tool for initial group creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update or delete tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This provides some implied guidance but lacks explicit alternatives.

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