MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or what the response looks like. No rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions are mentioned, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core action ('Update the status') and specifies the resource and allowed values. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its purpose.

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 is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Azure config' refers to, how the target config is identified, what the default status is, or what happens upon update. For a status-changing tool, more context is needed to guide proper 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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies the tool operates without explicit inputs, likely targeting a specific config contextually. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('status of an Azure config'), specifying the allowed status values (active/archived). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_cost_azure_uc_configs' and 'delete_cost_azure_uc_config' by focusing on status updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'update_' tools that might modify different aspects of Azure configs.

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 config), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other update operations on Azure configs. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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