schedule_maintenance_prtg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a WRITE with medium risk, that it creates a finite pause, and that maintenance windows are never indefinite. It does not explain side effects on alerts/monitoring, how to cancel early, or required permissions.

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 compact and front-loads the key information: the operation, the finite-duration constraint, and parameter meanings. The only minor redundancy is that minutes > 0 appears both in the prose and in the parameter description.

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?

The definition adequately identifies required inputs and the time-boxed behavior, but for a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps. It does not say what happens to existing maintenance windows, what the operational effect on monitoring is beyond 'pause', or what the agent should do if maintenance is already active.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section gives meaningful semantics for all three parameters: object_id is the PRTG object, minutes is the positive duration, and target is an optional config-based name with a default. This adds beyond the bare schema titles.

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 operation: schedule a time-boxed maintenance window that pauses a PRTG object for a specified number of minutes. It identifies the resource (PRTG object) and the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like schedule_maintenance or pause_sensor.

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?

It gives useful invocation context: minutes must be > 0, maintenance windows are never open-ended, and target may be omitted for the config default. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as pause_sensor, unmanage_node, or the generic schedule_maintenance.

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