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. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for an agent to parse while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. The description fails to address critical context: what type of app is being deleted (definition, deployment, instance?), whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity and risk of a delete operation, this is completely inadequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter semantics burden.

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 'Delete a single app' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (app), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete_app_builder_apps' (plural) or 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete_app_builder_apps' (plural) and 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment' available, there's no indication of whether this tool deletes app definitions, deployments, or something else, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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