thruk_checks

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action (enable/disable) but fails to mention side effects (e.g., immediate impact on monitoring, dependency on backend availability, or whether changes are persistent). Agents need more detail to assess risk.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core function, with no redundant words. However, it could be improved by front-loading key constraints (e.g., 'for a specific host or service') without adding bulk. It is concise but slightly under-informative for the number of parameters.

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 modifies state, has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, error conditions, and practical examples. For a mutation tool with conditional logic (cascade, backends), the description should provide more complete context to guide correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, just an overall statement. It doesn't explain how 'cascade' works or the role of 'backends' beyond what's in the schema, so no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'Enable or disable' is specific and the resource 'active checks for a host or service' is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like thruk_recheck or thruk_stale_checks, which also modify check behavior. Without distinction, the agent may not understand when to choose this over others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that disabling checks is distinct from scheduling downtime or acknowledging problems. The agent is left to infer usage context on its own.

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