MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'updates' (implying a mutation) and describes the return value, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose, but the second sentence about return values is somewhat redundant for a tool with no parameters. It could be more concise by integrating the return info into the first sentence or omitting it if output schema were provided. It's not wasteful but could be tighter.

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 (a mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'index order' means, potential side effects, or error handling. The return value is mentioned, but without an output schema, more detail on the 'index order object' would help. It falls short for a tool that modifies organizational configuration.

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 mentions 'request body' implicitly, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to elaborate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the (nonexistent) 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: 'updates the index order of your organization.' It specifies the verb ('updates') and resource ('index order of your organization'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_indexe' or 'get_logs_config_index_orders', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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, constraints, or sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_index_orders' for retrieval or 'update_logs_config_indexe' for other index updates. The agent is left without context for appropriate tool selection.

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