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 of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Delete a notebook' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes its limited space by merely restating the tool name instead of providing any useful contextual information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words add minimal value beyond what's already obvious from the tool name.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'notebook' is in this context, doesn't warn about destructive consequences, doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no information about the operation's outcome or potential errors. This leaves the agent dangerously uninformed.

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 (empty schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description 'Delete a notebook' implies a target notebook resource, which aligns with the empty schema suggesting parameters might be handled differently (e.g., via URL path). This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Delete a notebook' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'notebooks_delete' without adding meaningful specificity. While it clearly indicates a deletion action on a notebook resource, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete_notebook, delete_monitor, delete_dashboard, etc.) or provide any context about what a 'notebook' represents in this system.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a notebook ID), no indication of what happens after deletion (permanent vs reversible), no reference to related tools (like notebooks_get, notebooks_create, notebooks_update), and no warnings about destructive consequences. The agent receives zero usage context.

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