MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explicitly stating two critical behavioral traits: 'permanent and cannot be reverted' and 'cannot recreate an index with the same name as deleted ones.' These are important destructive operation warnings that help the agent understand consequences. However, it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each add critical value. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential behavioral warnings. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary information, and the most important details (permanence and name restrictions) are front-loaded immediately after the basic action.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the permanence and name reuse constraints, which are crucial for a deletion tool. However, it lacks information about what constitutes an 'index' in this context, potential side effects on dependent systems, or what confirmation/response to expect. Given the complexity of a deletion operation, more context would be helpful.

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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since the description focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter documentation, which aligns with the empty parameter set.

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 an existing index') and resource ('from your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_custom_destination', which would require mentioning it's specifically for indexes rather than other log configuration 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. While it mentions permanent deletion and name reuse restrictions, these are behavioral warnings rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this operation is appropriate versus other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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