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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'scan options' specifically entail. 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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information (update operation on agentless scanning accounts). Every word 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, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scan options' are, what 'activated account' means, what the update actually changes, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies configuration, more context about the behavior and outcome is needed.

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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, and it correctly implies this tool operates on some implicit context (an 'activated account') rather than explicit inputs. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('Agentless scan options for an activated account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integration_aws' or 'update_monitor', which would require mentioning what makes this particular update operation unique.

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., what constitutes an 'activated account'), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from related tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'delete_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw' in the sibling list.

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