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 discloses an authentication requirement (registered application key), which is useful context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, whether the update is idempotent or reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits or side effects.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds essential authentication context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It misses details like what the update entails (e.g., fields modifiable), expected response format, error conditions, or dependencies. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool in this 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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying an ID is required ('by ID'), which aligns with the tool name, though this is minimal. Baseline is 4 for zero 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a workflow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflows' and 'delete_workflow' by focusing on modification, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the list.

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 an authentication requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like having an existing workflow ID, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_workflow' for verification or 'create_workflows' for initial setup.

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