add_downtime_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome (suppress notifications) but does not disclose details like whether the downtime is immediately applied, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. There is no wasted wording, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or usage prerequisites, leaving significant context missing for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable when the schema fully documents them; hence, the baseline score 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 clearly states the specific action ('Schedule a downtime') and resource ('a host in Centreon'), with the purpose of suppressing notifications during maintenance. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'add_downtime_service' by explicitly naming 'host'.

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?

The description implies usage for scheduling host downtime but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, so it earns a baseline 'implied usage' score.

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