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 'Update' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update a Fastly account'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without fluff.

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, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified), what the response might contain, or any behavioral constraints. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none to describe. It avoids redundancy, so a baseline score of 4 is warranted for not adding unnecessary information.

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 Fastly account' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Fastly account'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the account can be updated or the scope of changes, which would help distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_integrations_fastly_account_services' or 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts'.

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., an existing Fastly account), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' for creation or 'delete_integrations_fastly_account' for deletion, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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