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 mentions the admin key requirement (an auth need) which is valuable, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is reversible, what 'disable' actually means (account deactivation vs deletion), whether data is preserved, confirmation requirements, or what the response looks like. For a destructive user management tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the key constraint. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'disable' entails.

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 user management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the admin requirement but omits critical context: what 'disable' means operationally, whether it's reversible, what happens to the user's data/access, confirmation requirements, and expected response format. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about this tool's behavior.

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 (empty object) with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion about parameters that don't exist.

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 ('Disable a user') which is more specific than just 'delete' from the tool name, though it doesn't specify what resource type or system this applies to. It distinguishes from the name by clarifying it's a disable operation rather than permanent deletion, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_user' vs 'delete_team' or 'delete_service_account'.

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 a single usage constraint ('Can only be used with an application key belonging to an administrator user'), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_user' to deactivate, or how it differs from other deletion tools for different resource types. No explicit when/when-not scenarios are provided.

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