zabbix_criar_manutencao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the window becomes active immediately, what happens if both hostids and groupids are omitted (a critical Zabbix semantic: window applies environment-wide), whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence is well front-loaded, but the leading '67.' is numbering noise that adds nothing, and the sentence is thin enough that its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but timestamp format, scope semantics, and permission requirements all remain undocumented.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at 'período e escopo' without mapping to active_since/active_till or hostids/groupids. Most damaging, active_since and active_till are typed as plain integers with no indication they are Unix epoch timestamps, and that format is documented nowhere else.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Criar uma janela de manutenção'), which cleanly separates it from zabbix_listar_manutencoes and zabbix_atualizar_manutencao by sibling name alone. The added 'com período e escopo explícitos' hints at the shape of the required inputs, though it stops short of naming the host/group scoping fields.

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?

There is no statement of when to create a maintenance window versus updating an existing one, no prerequisite (hosts must exist, permissions required), and no mention of alternatives such as zabbix_atualizar_manutencao or zabbix_suprimir_notificacoes. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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