Nagios Cancel Downtime Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that only downtime from this server's author is cancelled—but omits permissions required, idempotency behavior, and what happens if no matching downtime exists. This is useful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the main action and then the critical scope constraint. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers when and scope, but lacks details on permissions, error behavior, and idempotency for this mutation operation. Still, it is largely complete for a simple two-parameter cancel tool.

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%, and the schema fully documents both parameters (host_name and service_description). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (End) and resource (downtime), and adds a scope restriction (only downtime scheduled by this server's own author). It implicitly contrasts with nagios_schedule_downtime_tool, but does not explicitly name a sibling, meeting the criteria for a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to use it ('once the planned work is done') and clarifies the scope ('only downtime recorded under this server's own author is cancelled'). No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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