MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (removes live version), creates a new deployment object with a nil app_version_id, and indicates the app remains updatable and republishable. This covers the mutation impact and side effects adequately for a 0-parameter 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 front-loaded with the core action ('Unpublish an app, removing the live version of the app'), followed by important details about the deployment object and future republishing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive operation with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, its effects, and future implications. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format, leaving minor gaps.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs, maintaining a baseline score of 4 as per the rules for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Unpublish an app') and the resource ('app'), specifying that it removes the live version. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_app_builder_app_deployment' by focusing on unpublishing rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations in the sibling list.

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 when needing to remove a live app version, and mentions that the app can be republished later, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete operations) or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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