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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the permanence of the deletion ('permanently delete') and a specific error condition (409 conflict when referenced in dashboards). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to dependent data beyond dashboard references.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides critical error context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (permanent deletion) is front-loaded.

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 and no output schema, the description provides good context about permanence and a key error condition. However, it doesn't mention what 'specified' means (likely through URL path parameters) or what the successful response looks like, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral context rather than parameter details, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('the specified service level objective object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_slo_correction' by specifying it deletes SLO objects themselves, not related corrections.

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 clear context about when NOT to use this tool (when the SLO is referenced in a dashboard, as it will cause a 409 conflict error). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_slo' or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.

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