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 discloses the critical behavioral trait: 'If there are any failures, no dashboards will be deleted (partial success is not allowed).' This is valuable context about atomicity. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what constitutes a 'failure'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys additional information.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic behavioral transparency but lacks important context. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling details, or what the tool returns upon success. The atomicity disclosure is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('dashboards'), specifying it uses IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' (singular) by indicating it handles multiple dashboards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools beyond the plural naming.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_dashboard' (singular) or other dashboard-related tools. The description mentions the all-or-nothing behavior but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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