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. 'Update an Okta account' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. 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 extremely concise ('Update an Okta account') but suffers from under-specification rather than true efficiency. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single sentence fails to provide necessary context. It earns a middle score because it's not verbose or poorly structured, but its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, what fields can be modified, what authentication is required, or what success/failure looks like. The agent cannot understand how to properly invoke this tool or interpret results based on this minimal description.

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 doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add parameter-specific information (since none exist), it appropriately describes a zero-parameter operation. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 an Okta account' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_integrations_okta_account'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks any specificity about what aspects of an Okta account can be updated or what the operation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_integrations_okta_accounts', it doesn't clearly distinguish itself beyond the generic 'update' action.

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., needing an existing Okta account), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_integrations_okta_accounts' or 'delete_integrations_okta_account'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.

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