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. 'Disables a role' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects existing assignments, or what the response looks like. For a zero-parameter destructive operation, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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 ('Disables a role.') that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disables' means operationally, whether the action can be undone, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. Given the potential impact of disabling a role, more contextual information would help the agent understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 'Disables a role' clearly states the verb ('disables') and resource ('a role'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_role_permissions' or 'delete_role_users' by focusing specifically on role disabling rather than related deletions. However, it doesn't specify whether 'disables' means soft deletion, archiving, or permanent removal, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., role must exist, user must have permissions), consequences (e.g., what happens to users assigned to the role), or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools with 'delete_' prefixes, it doesn't clarify if this is the primary role deletion method or if alternatives exist.

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