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 mentions an authentication requirement (administrator key), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what fields can be edited, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Edit a user') and efficiently adds the authentication constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 a user update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what can be edited, how the update behaves, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero parameters, 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 clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_team' or 'update_role', which also perform updates on different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 some usage context by stating it 'Can only be used with an application key belonging to an administrator user,' which implies a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_users' or 'delete_user', or provide any exclusions or comparisons to other update-related tools in the sibling list.

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