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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to provide essential context about what 'Update' entails operationally, how to identify which test to update, what fields can be modified, or what happens after invocation. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and requirements.

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 (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter details since there are none, which is appropriate. With no parameters to document, the baseline score is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 Synthetics test' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Synthetics test'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile', which appear to be more specific update operations.

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. With multiple sibling tools for updating synthetics tests (e.g., update_synthetics_tests_browser, update_synthetics_tests_mobile, update_synthetics_test_v1), there's no indication whether this is a generic update tool or has specific scope. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.

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