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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a notebook' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.

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—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 an update operation (a mutation), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, or the expected outcome. While the empty parameter schema simplifies input, the lack of behavioral and output context leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters. No additional value is required or provided.

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 'Update a notebook' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('notebook'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's quite generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_notebook' (which appears in the list) or specify what aspects of a notebook can be updated. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'notebooks_create', 'notebooks_delete', or 'notebooks_get'. Without any usage context, an agent would struggle to apply it correctly.

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