MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, what happens to existing dashboard settings, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'specified token' hints at authentication but doesn't explain how it works.

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?

Single sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. No wasted words or redundant information. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details about what 'update' entails for a shared dashboard.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and vague purpose, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, what dashboard properties can be changed, what the 'token' refers to, or what the expected outcome is. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. However, it mentions 'specified token' which might imply a parameter not reflected in the schema, creating potential confusion. Given zero parameters, baseline is 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('a shared dashboard'), but is vague about what specifically gets updated. It mentions 'associated with the specified token' which adds some context but doesn't clarify what dashboard properties can be modified. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_v1'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_v1'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, required permissions, or any context about what makes a dashboard 'shared' versus regular. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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