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. It states 'Removes a role from an archive', implying a destructive mutation, but does not address permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The API link offers external documentation but does not compensate for missing behavioral details in the description itself.

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 sentence with an API link, which is concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying it's for logs config archives). The API link adds value but does not fully compensate for the brevity in core explanation, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It identifies the action and resource but lacks context on permissions, side effects, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more completeness (e.g., warning about destructive effects) is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 does not add parameter details, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is applied as the schema fully covers the parameter semantics (none required).

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 ('Removes a role') and the target ('from an archive'), which matches the tool name 'delete_logs_config_archive_readers'. It specifies the resource (role in an archive) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'create_logs_config_archive_readers', which would require more context about what distinguishes this specific deletion operation.

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 mentions the Roles API link but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_logs_config_archive' for deleting the archive itself). Without such context, an agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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