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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like 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 that front-loads the key action ('Update') and resource. Every word earns its place by specifying updatable fields without redundancy. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 has 0 parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, response format). The description is complete for a simple update operation but insufficient for safe and effective use without additional guidance.

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 (empty object), so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying what can be updated ('status and/or account filtering configuration'), which provides context beyond the empty schema. This compensates appropriately for the lack of parameters.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('AWS CUR config'), specifying what fields can be updated ('status (active/archived) and/or account filtering configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_cost_azure_uc_config' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing config to update), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_cost_azure_uc_config'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description context.

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