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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated monitors, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permissions needed, confirmation requirements, side effects, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is applied as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 'Delete a monitor configuration policy' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('monitor configuration policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_monitor' or 'delete_monitor_notification_rule' by specifying 'policy' rather than other monitor-related entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 a policy ID), conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. Given the sibling tools include various delete operations, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool over others.

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