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 but only states the action ('enable'). It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and states the core action directly. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool likely performs a mutation (enabling something), the absence of annotations, output schema, and minimal description leaves significant gaps. The description doesn't explain what 'embed' refers to, what enabling entails, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool with zero structured context, this description is inadequate.

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 doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.

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 'Enable a specified embed' states the action (enable) and target (a specified embed), but is vague about what an 'embed' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_graph_embeds' or 'get_graph_embed'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource domain.

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 embed to enable), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_graph_embeds' (for creation) or 'get_graph_embed_revoke' (for disabling/revoking).

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