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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Updates' which implies a mutation/write operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether the update is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits.

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 that's technically concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it fails to provide essential context that would help the agent. The structure is front-loaded with the core action but leaves too much unexplained about what's being updated and how.

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 ('Updates') with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'endpoint' is in this context, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool that modifies configuration, this lack of context makes it nearly unusable for an AI agent.

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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description mentions `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>` which appears to be a placeholder, but since the schema indicates no parameters, this might be misleading. However, with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as there's nothing for the description to compensate for regarding parameter semantics.

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 'Updates the endpoint with the name `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>`' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name ('update_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable'). It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (e.g., webhook configuration, custom variable settings) or what 'endpoint' refers to in this context. While it mentions a specific parameter placeholder, it fails to clearly articulate the tool's purpose beyond the name.

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 any prerequisites (e.g., existing custom variables), related tools (like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables' or 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable' from the sibling list), or specific scenarios where this update operation is appropriate. The agent receives no usage context.

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