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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify required permissions, 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 in transparency.

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 is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but limited by its brevity.

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 tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'custom framework' entails, what updates are possible, or behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics for this parameterless tool.

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 custom framework' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'custom framework' but lacks details about what a 'custom framework' is or what aspects can be updated, making it vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing framework to update), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks' or 'delete_cloud_security_management_custom_framework', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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