MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action creates a Downtime V2 (a behavioral trait), but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what the default downtime settings are, whether it's reversible (though 'unmute_host' exists), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides crucial implementation detail (creates Downtime V2) with a helpful documentation link. Every element 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects. While it mentions the Downtime V2 implementation, it doesn't cover permissions needed, default duration, what 'mute' means operationally, or error conditions. The presence of 'unmute_host' as a sibling suggests reversibility, but this isn't stated.

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. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to. It focuses on the action's effect rather than parameter details, which is suitable given the empty input 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 ('Mute a host') and specifies the resource ('host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mute_monitor' by focusing on hosts rather than monitors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_downtimes' which is conceptually related.

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 some usage context by noting this creates a Downtime V2, implying it's for silencing host alerts. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_downtimes' or 'mute_monitor', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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