maintenance_create

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

Annotations are minimal (no hints for readOnly, idempotent, destructive). The description adds that it 'suppresses alerts' and is used for maintenance, which is helpful but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It could be slightly more structured, but it effectively communicates the core functionality without waste.

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 a well-covered schema and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers the main use case and context. It does not explain return values or error cases, but those are likely detailed elsewhere.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra value is added.

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's purpose ('Create a new maintenance period in Zabbix') and explains what it does ('schedules a maintenance window when monitoring alerts are suppressed'). It differentiates from sibling tools like maintenance_delete and maintenance_update by being the creation variant.

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 context for use ('useful for planned upgrades, patching, or system maintenance without triggering false alarms') but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like maintenance_get. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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