vibemk_schedule_host_downtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions suppressing alerts; it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or whether changes require activation.

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 one sentence and to the point, though 'Schedule host downtime' and 'Schedule maintenance downtime' are slightly redundant. Still, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complete parameter descriptions in the schema and no output schema, the tool description is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic call. It could be slightly richer on behavioral consequences, but the schema fills most 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 100%, with each parameter already explained including defaults and natural-language formats. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (schedule), resource (host), and purpose (maintenance downtime to suppress alerts). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like schedule_service_downtime and schedule_downtime.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like schedule_downtime or schedule_service_downtime, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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