thruk_schedule_hostgroup_downtime

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral detail. It does not explain whether the downtime is immediate, how parameters like fixed and duration_minutes interact, or any side effects. The agent lacks transparency on what the tool actually does beyond the basic 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. However, for a tool with 9 parameters, it is too brief and lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or examples). It is acceptable but not optimally organized.

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 description is incomplete given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools). It fails to explain how to use the parameters, what the return value is, or how this tool differs from other scheduling tools.

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?

Only 22% of parameters have schema descriptions (hostgroup and backends). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of fields like target, author, or duration_minutes from names alone.

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 tool schedules downtime on every host or service of a hostgroup, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like thruk_schedule_downtime or thruk_schedule_servicegroup_downtime.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative scheduling tools (e.g., for single objects or propagated downtimes). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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