thruk_schedule_servicegroup_downtime

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

No annotations are provided. The description only gives a high-level action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, required permissions, side effects, or how downtime is applied (e.g., immediate or scheduled). The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections). It is minimally acceptable but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how start_time/end_time or duration_minutes interact, or how comments are used. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 low (22%), with only servicegroup and backends having descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning for the other 7 parameters (fixed, author, target, comment, end_time, start_time, duration_minutes). The agent must infer from names, which is ambiguous.

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 action (schedule a downtime) and the target (servicegroup's services or owning hosts). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on hosts or hostgroups, though 'or' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thruk_schedule_downtime or thruk_schedule_hostgroup_downtime. The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or context.

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