MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that updating 'creates a new version of the app,' which hints at versioning behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the previous version. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the tool's action and a key behavioral note (version creation). There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place efficiently.

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 updating an app (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, the response format, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, more context 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. It doesn't contradict or compensate unnecessarily, earning a score of 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 an existing app') and specifies the resource ('app'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from 'create_app_builder_apps' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the app can be updated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 app ID), nor does it differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'update_app_builder_app_deployment'). There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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