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. It discloses that the operation uses PUT to replace the entire configuration, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is destructive to existing data, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, return value, and behavioral detail about PUT replacement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the replacement behavior earlier, but overall it's well-organized and concise.

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 and no output schema, the description should do more. It covers the basic operation and replacement behavior but lacks information about required permissions, what happens to the old configuration, error cases, or what the Index object contains. For a configuration update tool in a complex system, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 an index as identified by its name' specifies the verb (update) and resource (index). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_logs_config_indexes' and 'delete_logs_config_indexe' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the same domain.

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 mentions the PUT method replaces configuration but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose this over create/delete, or any constraints. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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