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. It effectively describes important behavioral traits: the atomic update requirement for certain fields and the restrictions on modifying default rules. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or whether the update is idempotent, but provides more behavioral context than many descriptions with zero annotations.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. Three sentences cover: 1) the core purpose, 2) the atomic update requirement for specific fields, and 3) restrictions on default rules. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words. The most critical information appears first.

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 and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral constraints but lacks important context. It doesn't mention what constitutes a 'rule' in this context, what the response looks like, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (security monitoring domain), more context about the rule object structure would be helpful.

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% schema description coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral constraints rather than parameter documentation. It mentions fields like 'cases', 'queries', and 'options' that are presumably part of the rule object being updated, adding useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing rule.' It specifies the resource (security monitoring rule) and action (update). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule' or 'update_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter', which are also update operations on related security objects.

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 usage guidelines for specific scenarios: it explains how to update fields like 'cases', 'queries', or 'options' (must include whole field), and specifies restrictions for default rules (can only update enabled status, notifications, or tags). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or rule existence.

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