MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if the removal is reversible, what happens to users with that permission, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (a destructive mutation with security implications), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral traits, and there's no output schema. The description fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, side effects, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.

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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies the tool operates on a predefined context (role and permission). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's simplicity.

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 'Removes a permission from a role' clearly states the verb ('removes') and resource ('permission from a role'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from general 'delete' operations by specifying the target relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_role' or 'delete_role_users', which reduces specificity.

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. With sibling tools like 'delete_role', 'delete_role_users', and 'create_role_permissions', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this specific removal operation is needed versus deleting the entire role or modifying users.

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