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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implying a mutation but gives no details about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical 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 sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words but fails to provide necessary context. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, it's completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'downtime' is, what fields can be updated, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies system state, this lack of context is highly problematic.

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 mentions 'by `downtime_id`' which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 downtime by `downtime_id`' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_downtime' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'downtime' but lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the scope of changes. Compared to sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' and 'downtimes_cancel', it doesn't clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the generic update action.

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 downtime), exclusions, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' for new downtimes or 'downtimes_cancel' for termination. There's no context about typical use cases or constraints.

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