downtimes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states actions like create, update, cancel but does not explain side effects (e.g., cancellations may suppress alerts, creation affects active monitors). The impact on alerting and dependencies is not described, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 three sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second lists actions, third gives use cases. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 6 parameters and nested objects, and lacks an output schema. The description covers main uses and actions but omits details on error handling, idempotency, or response formats. It is adequate for basic understanding but not exhaustive for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds value by stating the config parameter 'Must include scope and schedule,' which is not in the schema description. It also enumerates actions in plain text, reinforcing the enum. This goes beyond mere repetition.

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 scheduled downtimes for maintenance windows, listing specific actions (list, get, create, update, cancel, listByMonitor). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other Datadog resources like monitors or dashboards.

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 explicit usage scenarios: scheduling maintenance, preventing false alerts during deployments, managing recurring maintenance windows. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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