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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, what happens if the service doesn't exist, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

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, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain what 'update' entails (e.g., what fields can be updated, whether it's a partial or full update), what authentication is required, and what the response looks like. The current single sentence is inadequate for a tool that modifies infrastructure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.

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 action ('Update') and the target resource ('a Fastly service for an account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integrations_fastly_account' or other integration update tools, which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about the service.

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. There are many sibling update tools (e.g., update_integrations_fastly_account, update_integration_aws), but no indication of when this specific Fastly service update is appropriate versus other integration updates or versus creating/deleting Fastly services.

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