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. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Update'), mentions the HTTP method ('PUT'), and warns about side effects on data processing. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The behavioral disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the basic 'update' action.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and important side effect. The second sentence adds technical detail about the HTTP method. Both sentences earn their place. Minor improvement could be front-loading the HTTP method note more clearly.

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 (mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and a critical side effect but lacks information about permissions, error handling, response format, and specific prerequisites. For a mutation tool with potential data impact, more completeness would be beneficial.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading information 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 tool's purpose: 'Update the order of your archives' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's about archive ordering rather than creation, deletion, or configuration of archives themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ordering tools like 'update_logs_config_index_orders' or 'update_logs_config_pipeline_orders'.

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 implied usage context: 'Since logs are processed sequentially, reordering an archive may change the structure and content of the data processed by other archives.' This suggests when to be cautious but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs creating/deleting archives). No explicit 'when-not' guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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