maintenance_create

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It explicitly states that a maintenance window suppresses monitoring alerts, which is crucial behavioral information beyond what annotations convey. This directly informs the agent of the side effect on alerting. It stops short of detailing idempotency or failure modes, but the disclosed effect is highly relevant and well-articulated.

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 exceptionally concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and immediately explains the practical benefit, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse and decide.

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 presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a create operation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary effect (alert suppression) and the typical use cases. Missing details like permission requirements or error conditions are not critical for a basic call. The description adequately equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly for standard scenarios.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning; however, the schema provides adequate context for each field, including a detailed explanation of the 'timeperiods' parameter and defaults. Since the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new maintenance period in Zabbix' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates itself from siblings like maintenance_update or maintenance_delete by emphasizing 'new' and explaining the purpose (suppressing alerts during planned upgrades). This unambiguous verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'useful for planned upgrades, patching, or system maintenance without triggering false alarms.' This gives strong guidance on applicability, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use maintenance_update for existing windows'). The context is sufficient for most agents to recognize the intended usage.

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