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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to fields not mentioned, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with zero waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'custom destination' means in this context, what fields can be updated, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively despite the simple parameter situation.

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 (empty schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'given fields' which implies field-level updates, but since there are no actual parameters, this is adequate. 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('given fields of a specific custom destination'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'update_logs_config_metric', which follow similar patterns for different log configuration resources.

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 (like needing an existing custom destination), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling tool list. 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.