logs_archives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that mutations are blocked in read-only mode and that credential fields are forwarded unchanged. However, it lacks details on destructive behavior, authorization needs, idempotency, or error handling for a tool with multiple mutating actions.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the overall purpose, enumerates actions and destination types, and ends with the read-only constraint. Every sentence provides necessary 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?

For a multi-action tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain return values for actions like list or create (e.g., what the response contains, pagination, error codes). The verbose parameter hint is insufficient. This leaves agents uncertain about expected output.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about destination types and credential forwarding, but the schema already provides similar information. No additional meaning beyond the schema is introduced.

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 tool manages Datadog logs archives for long-term retention to cloud storage (S3, GCS, Azure Blob). It lists all supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete, reorder, get_order) and destination types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like logs, logs_indexes, etc.

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 implies usage for managing log archives by listing actions and configuration requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., indexes or pipelines) or provide caveats like prerequisites or system constraints.

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