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 implies a mutation ('change'), suggesting it's not read-only, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse 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 updating a security signal's state, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on what 'triage state' means, potential values, or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'Change the triage state of a security signal' clearly states the action ('change') and resource ('security signal'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'triage state' specifically entails (e.g., status values like 'open', 'closed', 'investigating'). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_assignee' or 'update_security_monitoring_signal_incidents', which also modify security signals but for different attributes.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific signal ID or permissions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that update other aspects of security signals (e.g., assignee or incidents). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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