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 performs deletions (destructive behavior) and explains the partial/full deletion logic. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, whether deletions are reversible, rate limits, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying detail about partial/full deletion. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the deletion logic, but omits important context like error handling, response format, or side effects. For a bulk deletion tool, more completeness would be helpful, though the zero-parameter schema simplifies the task.

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 doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none exist. It effectively communicates that this tool operates without explicit inputs, though it could hint at how deletion targets are specified (e.g., via request body).

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: 'Delete (or partially delete) multiple service level objective objects.' It specifies the verb ('delete'), resource ('service level objective objects'), and scope ('multiple'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'slo_delete', which appear to handle single deletions.

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 explaining that it can delete thresholds partially or fully, with full deletion leading to object removal. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_slo' (likely for single deletions) or 'slo_delete' (another sibling). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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