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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing configurations, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'monitor configuration policy' entails, how it differs from other monitor-related tools, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation. However, it doesn't add any parameter-related context beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 'Edit a monitor configuration policy' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a monitor configuration policy'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be edited and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'update_monitor_v1', which appear to serve similar purposes.

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. There are multiple sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'update_monitor', 'update_monitor_v1', 'update_monitor_notification_rule'), but the description doesn't clarify the scope, prerequisites, or differentiation between them, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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