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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., if it affects associated data). 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation requirements, error conditions, or what 'specified' means in the absence of parameters. For a deletion tool, more context is needed to ensure safe usage.

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 lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate 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 ('Delete') and the resource ('Custom Costs file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list, such as 'delete_cost_aws_cur_config' or 'delete_cost_gcp_uc_config', which target different resource types.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. Given the sibling tools include 'get_cost_custom_cost' and 'update_cost_custom_costs', some context on when deletion is appropriate would be helpful.

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