MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action ('Update') without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool, making it insufficient for safe use.

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, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Org Config' means, the impact of updates, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here; baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, though it could hint at implicit parameters if any exist.

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 the value of a specific Org Config' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Org Config'), but it's vague about what 'Org Config' entails—whether it's settings, parameters, or metadata. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_org' or 'get_org_config', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'update_org' and 'get_org_config', but the description doesn't specify if this is for configuration vs. metadata updates, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no usage context.

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