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 reveals important constraints about non-editable relationships and error conditions when trying to edit regex attributes, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what the response looks like.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address important constraints. It's front-loaded with the basic purpose statement, though that statement is minimal. There's no wasted text, and every sentence provides specific information about tool 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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides some important behavioral constraints but is incomplete. For an update operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, and how to identify which rule to update. The constraints about standard_pattern relationships are helpful but don't constitute complete guidance.

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 the schema already documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by specifying constraints about what MUST NOT be included in the request body (standard_pattern relationship) and error conditions for regex editing attempts, which provides 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 starts with 'Update a scanning rule' which is a tautology of the tool name 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule'. It doesn't specify what aspects of a scanning rule can be updated or what resource is being modified. While it mentions constraints about standard_pattern relationships, it doesn't clearly state the tool's primary function beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rules' or 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule'. The only usage information is a constraint about what not to include in the request body.

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