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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It's minimal and lacks critical context 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'edit' involves, what fields can be modified, or the expected outcome, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Edit a Synthetic private location' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Synthetic private location'), but it's vague about what 'edit' entails. It doesn't specify which aspects can be edited (e.g., name, configuration, status) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_private_locations' or 'delete_synthetics_private_location'.

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 (e.g., needing an existing private location), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_private_locations' or 'delete_synthetics_private_location' for context.

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