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. It discloses that this is a mutation tool ('Update'), specifies prerequisites ('Requires an existing tenant_name and client_id'), and describes overwrite behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action and prerequisites, explaining overwrite behavior, and providing field-specific guidance. There is zero wasted language and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 and no output schema, the description should do more heavy lifting. While it covers the core update mechanics and field behavior well, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or broader system impacts. The description is complete for basic usage but insufficient for full operational understanding.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains that fields are supplied in a payload and provides semantic guidance about field handling (overwrite behavior, special fields for tenant/client ID, omission to leave unchanged), which adds value 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a Datadog-Azure integration'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_azures' and 'delete_integration_azures' by focusing on modification, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools in the list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when updating an existing integration, requiring 'tenant_name' and 'client_id'. It also gives guidance on field handling (overwrite behavior, special fields for tenant/client ID updates). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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