add_downtime_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions the effect ('suppress notifications') but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, potential permission requirements, whether existing downtimes are replaced, or what the response/return value is. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious scheduling action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, matching the standard of high-quality tool descriptions.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it moderately complex. The description is minimal and does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or how it interacts with existing downtime/acknowledgement tools. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 parameters are already well-documented with types and descriptions (e.g., 'start_time' in ISO 8601, 'is_fixed' meaning fixed vs flexible). The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the action ('Schedule a downtime'), the target ('for a service in Centreon'), and the purpose ('to suppress notifications during maintenance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'service' rather than 'host', aligning with add_downtime_service vs add_downtime_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 maintenance windows where notifications need to be suppressed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like add_downtime_host or acknowledge_service. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, only the general context of maintenance.

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