Nagios Schedule Downtime Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that notifications are suppressed for the window and that problems during it are recorded as planned work rather than noise. It omits permission/precondition requirements and what happens if the host is unknown or already in downtime, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it changes downstream, and how to undo it. The key scoping fact (starting now) is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need not explain returns; it adequately covers purpose, effect, and lifecycle. The remaining gap is guidance versus the acknowledgement sibling and precondition failure behavior for a mutation with no annotations.

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%, so the schema already explains host_name, service_description, minutes, and comment thoroughly. The description adds only the implication that no start-time argument exists, which is a minor incremental gain over the structured fields.

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?

States the specific verb and resource ('Schedule fixed downtime') plus the critical constraint that the window starts now, not at a caller-supplied time. It also names the counterpart tool (nagios_cancel_downtime_tool) so the agent can see it is part of a start/stop pair rather than a one-off action.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('before planned work makes checks fail') and the closing counterpart action ('Cancel it with nagios_cancel_downtime_tool when the work is done'). It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over nagios_acknowledge_tool for the same failing checks, which is the most likely sibling confusion.

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