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 mentions 'update' and 'move an issue between states', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences with zero waste: it states the purpose upfront and provides a usage hint. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place.

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's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it 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% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying that the update is done 'by `issue_id`' and involves moving between states like 'OPEN', 'RESOLVED', or 'IGNORED', which clarifies the tool's semantics beyond the empty schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update the state of an issue by `issue_id`' with specific examples of states like 'OPEN', 'RESOLVED', or 'IGNORED'. It includes a verb ('update'), resource ('issue'), and scope ('state'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_assignee'.

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 minimal guidance: 'Use this endpoint to move an issue between states...' which implies usage but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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