MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transactional behavior ('no partial success'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'restore' entails (e.g., reverting to a previous state). The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource, while the second clarifies the all-or-nothing behavior. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and transactional behavior but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'restore' means in context. For a mutation tool with no structured support, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully adequate.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'specified IDs', which implies an input mechanism, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add or detract value. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('dashboards'), specifying that restoration uses 'specified IDs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_dashboard' (singular) and 'create_dashboards', though it doesn't explicitly compare them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from other update/restore operations.

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 mentions 'specified IDs' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing deleted dashboards to restore. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'create_dashboards'.

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