MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: that when 'team_links' is present, it reorders links and removes existing ones not in the array. However, it doesn't mention other critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, what fields can be updated, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral information about team_links handling. There is zero wasted language, and both sentences earn their place by providing distinct, valuable information.

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 mentions one specific behavior (team_links handling) but doesn't cover what other team properties can be updated, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies team data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter documentation.

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 action ('Update a team') and specifies the required identifier ('using the team's `id`'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_team_links' or 'update_team_memberships', which appear to handle more specific team-related updates.

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 mentions the 'team_links' relationship behavior, but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other team-related update tools (like update_team_links, update_team_memberships, or update_team_permission_settings) or create/delete operations.

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