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. It mentions the administrative permission requirement, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as what 'Edit' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds crucial permission context. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the permission requirement but lacks details on what 'Edit' involves, expected inputs (though there are none), or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies roles, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.

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, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about them.

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 verb ('Edit') and resource ('a role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_role_permissions' or 'update_role_users' that might also modify role-related data, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: 'Can only be used with application keys belonging to administrators.' This establishes a prerequisite (administrative permissions) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_roles' or 'delete_role', nor does it mention exclusions.

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