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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'update'), uses PUT method to replace the current order, and warns about downstream impacts on data processing. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers essential mutation behavior and consequences.

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 and a note. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains consequences, and the note clarifies the HTTP method. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the PUT method note.

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 affecting pipeline order), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the impact, but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context 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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and behavior. This meets the baseline for a tool with no 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 pipelines.' It specifies the resource (pipelines) and action (update order). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_pipeline' or 'update_logs_config_archive_orders' beyond the name, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 by explaining that logs are processed sequentially and reordering may affect other pipelines. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_logs_config_pipeline' for individual pipeline settings) or any prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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