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. 'Edit metadata' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing metadata not mentioned, or what the response looks like. The external documentation link doesn't compensate for these missing behavioral details.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and provide a reference link. There's no wasted verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.

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 minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks crucial information about permissions, side effects, response format, and how it differs from similar update operations in the extensive sibling tool list.

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, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to do so. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as established in the guidelines.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('metadata of a specific metric'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_metric_tags' or 'update_monitor', which reduces its differentiation value.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a link to documentation about 'supported types', but this is generic reference material rather than specific usage instructions for this particular tool in context of sibling tools.

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