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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, front-loading the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is inadequate. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, confirmation requirements, or what 'canceling a downtime' actually entails. The current description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which this meets.

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 'Cancel a downtime' clearly states the action (cancel) and resource (downtime), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'downtimes_cancel' which appears to serve the same purpose, leaving some ambiguity about tool differentiation.

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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without contextual help.

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