MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Schedule downtime' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether scheduling is immediate or future-dated, what happens to existing downtimes, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 with just two words, 'Schedule downtime', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly states the action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool (creating/scheduling downtime) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what downtime entails, the expected outcome, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 'Schedule downtime' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'downtimes_create'. While it indicates the action (schedule) and resource (downtime), it lacks specificity about what downtime means in this context (e.g., monitoring downtime, maintenance windows) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'downtimes_cancel' or 'downtimes_list'.

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 are sibling tools like 'downtimes_cancel' and 'downtimes_list', but the description doesn't mention when to create vs. cancel or list downtimes, nor does it specify any prerequisites, context, or constraints for scheduling downtime.

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