vibemk_schedule_service_downtime

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

The description indicates a write/mutation operation (scheduling downtime) but provides no details on side effects, such as whether changes need activation, require permissions, or affect existing downtimes. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it only partially discloses behavior.

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 mostly clear, but it is somewhat redundant: 'Schedule service downtime' and 'Schedule maintenance downtime for specific services' convey overlapping information. A single sentence would have been more concise.

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, the description is sufficient at a high level, but it lacks context about expected outcomes, such as what the response contains or how it interacts with other downtime tools. Given the presence of similar siblings, more context about scope would be helpful.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify relationships or edge cases for parameters like end_time vs duration.

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 action (schedule) and the target (service downtime for specific services). It is understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like vibemk_schedule_downtime or vibemk_schedule_host_downtime, which could confuse an agent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to use schedule_downtime or schedule_host_downtime instead.

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