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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, confirmation prompts, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing clarity for such a simple tool.

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, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or confirmation requirements. The current description leaves too many open questions about how the deletion actually works in practice.

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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, meeting the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 an on-call schedule' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('on-call schedule'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_on_call_escalation_policy', but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.

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, prerequisites, or constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or 'get_on_call_schedule', leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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