MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('permanently delete'), which is crucial behavioral information. However, it lacks details about permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the object doesn't exist. The word 'permanently' adds some value beyond just 'delete'.

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 appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the key information ('permanently delete'). Every word earns its place.

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 is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and resource but lacks important context like error conditions, confirmation requirements, or what 'specified' means given there are no parameters. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what gets returned, but it doesn't.

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 baseline is 4. The description mentions 'specified SLO correction object', which implies some identification mechanism, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.

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 ('permanently delete') and the target resource ('specified SLO correction object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'update_slo_correction', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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., needing an existing SLO correction), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'update_slo_correction'.

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