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 but offers none. 'Update a monitor' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing monitor configurations, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral information.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every word should earn its place, but 'Update a monitor' provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself. The description fails to use its limited space to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or behavior.

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 a sparse description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'updating a monitor' entails, what data might be required (despite 0 parameters), what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from related operations. Given the complexity implied by monitor management systems, this description leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, the baseline for this situation is appropriately high since there are no parameters to document.

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 'Update a monitor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a monitor can be updated, what resource is involved, or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_monitor' (without the _v1 suffix). While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks any distinguishing details about scope or functionality.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'mute_monitor_v1'. An agent would have no information about when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other monitor-related operations.

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