zabbix_create_maintenance

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent destructive write, and the description adds real value on top: a medium risk rating, the mandatory minutes>0 constraint, and the precise reversal path ('the undo deletes exactly the maintenance id this call created'). It does not discuss authentication/permission requirements or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the action, followed by constraints, reversibility, and a compact Args block. Every line is useful and nothing is padding.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, reversibility, and parameter provenance, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It is silent on return payload and permission requirements, which are minor residual gaps.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it documents all five params, tells the agent where ids come from (zabbix_hosts, zabbix_hostgroups), and explains the target default ('omit for the default'). This adds meaning the bare schema cannot.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a time-boxed Zabbix maintenance window') and adds a scoping qualifier ('time-boxed') that separates it from an open-ended window or from the sibling zabbix_delete_maintenance / zabbix_maintenances tools. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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 states clear preconditions for use: minutes must be > 0 (never open-ended) and at least one host or group id is required. It gives strong context for when the call is appropriate but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case.

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