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 an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention critical traits like whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects, nor does it describe the response format or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details: what happens post-deletion (e.g., permanence, confirmation), error handling, and how to specify the workflow ID (since the schema shows no parameters). The authentication note is helpful but insufficient 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 there are no parameters to document. The description implies a workflow ID is needed ('by ID'), but since the schema shows no properties, this might indicate the ID is handled elsewhere (e.g., in the URL). Given the lack of parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds some context without conflicting with the 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workflow_instances' or 'delete_workflows' (if they exist), which would require more context about what distinguishes deleting a single workflow by ID from other deletion operations.

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. It mentions an API requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like needing the workflow ID, nor does it compare to other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_workflows' or 'delete_workflow_instances'). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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