vibemk_schedule_downtime

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

No annotations exist and the description only says 'schedule downtime'; it does not disclose side effects such as whether an activation is required, whether existing downtimes are affected, or what permissions are needed. This leaves the agent guessing about the operation's behavioral footprint.

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 short and readable but redundant: 'Schedule downtime - Schedule maintenance downtime' essentially states the same idea twice. It is not harmful, but the repetition does not add information.

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 scheduling operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: which target fields apply to which downtime type, whether host_name or service_description must be paired, and what the return/confirmation behavior is. The schema alone partially fills this, but the description does not make the tool usable confidently.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the six parameters, but they are minimal boilerplate (e.g., 'Type: host, service, or hostgroup'). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the required/optional relationship between downtime_type, host_name, and service_description is not clarified. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description identifies the action and resource — scheduling downtime — and the 'maintenance downtime' phrase adds light context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools vibemk_schedule_host_downtime and vibemk_schedule_service_downtime, so an agent cannot tell which scope this generic call covers.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over the more specific schedule_host_downtime/schedule_service_downtime siblings, nor on how to select host_name vs service_description based on downtime_type. The description simply restates the action without usage context.

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