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 offers zero behavioral disclosure. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The single phrase 'Unmute a monitor' provides no operational context beyond the basic action.

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 at just three words, front-loading the essential action without any wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse while conveying the core purpose.

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. It doesn't explain what 'unmute' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. While the parameter situation is simple, the lack of behavioral and output information makes this inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though it could mention that no inputs are required.

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 'Unmute a monitor' clearly states the action (unmute) and resource (monitor) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mute_monitor' and 'mute_monitor_v1' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what type of monitor or system context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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., monitor must be muted first), conditions for use, or comparison to similar tools like 'unmute_host' or 'unmute_monitor' (without _v1). This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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