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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, confirmation prompts, side effects on related data, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and significant behavioral implications, the description is inadequate. It should address permanence, permissions, dependencies, and confirmation requirements to be complete. The current description provides only the basic purpose without necessary operational context.

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, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed by not mentioning any. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an existing RUM application in your organization'), providing specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_rum_applications' and 'update_rum_application' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.

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 doesn't mention when deletion is appropriate versus other operations on RUM applications, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_rum_application' for verification before deletion.

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