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 implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation operation.

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 directly states the tool's action and identifiers. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Update' and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly noting the lack of parameters or clarifying the resource context.

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 complexity of an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' involves, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID', but since these aren't in the schema, it might be misleading. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is high as the schema fully covers the input requirements.

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 states the action ('Update') and target ('a Confluent resource'), but is vague about what 'update' entails—it doesn't specify which fields or settings can be modified. It mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID' as identifiers, but lacks detail on the resource type or update scope. Compared to siblings like 'update_integrations_confluent_cloud_account', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the resource focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing resources), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources' or 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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