Modify an existing application key in Datadog to update access permissions or configuration settings for API integration.
Edit an application key
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "update_application_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention if this requires admin permissions, what happens if the key doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. 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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but there's no additional context to structure further.
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 a mutation tool (editing application keys likely involves permissions and side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. The description fails to provide necessary context about what 'edit' entails, prerequisites, or outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.
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, 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 lack of parameters. No additional parameter information 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 'Edit an application key' restates the tool name 'update_application_key' with a synonym ('Edit' for 'update'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what aspects of an application key can be edited or how this differs from other update tools like 'update_current_user_application_key' or 'update_service_account_application_keys' among the siblings.
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 sibling tools like 'update_current_user_application_key' and 'update_service_account_application_keys', it's unclear whether this tool is for general application keys, requires specific permissions, or has other prerequisites. No context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.