MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a dashboard, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a dashboard') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: no information on permissions, irreversibility, error handling, or what happens post-deletion. For a tool that permanently removes data, this is inadequate and could lead to misuse.

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% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', which could imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value or confusion. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 resource ('a dashboard'), specifying it uses 'the specified ID'. This distinguishes it from other deletion tools that target different resources, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboards' (plural) or 'delete_dashboard_v1', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for single vs. bulk 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing dashboard ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'delete_dashboards' or 'delete_dashboard_v1' in the sibling list, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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