Create scheduled downtime for up to 100 devices at once, with an optional comment and duration up to 7 days.
Create SDT for multiple devices/resources (max 100, requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | SDT comment | |
| device_ids | Yes | Device IDs (max 100) | |
| duration_minutes | No | Duration (max 7 days) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'requires write permission' and 'max 100', which is useful context. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the bar for added value is lower. However, it does not disclose what happens during bulk creation (e.g., partial failure, all-or-nothing, concurrent behavior), which is relevant for a bulk mutation.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation ('Create SDT') and then immediately states the key constraint (max 100) and permission requirement. Every word earns its place.
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?
As a bulk write operation with no output schema, the description should explain expected outcomes, such as whether the entire batch succeeds or partially fails, and what response to expect. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or relationship to related SDT operations. This is a notable gap for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%: all three parameters have descriptions. The description's phrase 'multiple devices/resources' maps directly to device_ids, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the descriptive burden.
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 ('Create') and resource ('SDT for multiple devices/resources'), clearly indicating a bulk operation. The term 'resources' adds slight ambiguity, but the parameter name device_ids disambiguates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_sdt, though the 'multiple' scope is implied.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. It does not state 'use create_sdt for a single device' or 'use this for batches up to 100'. With sibling tools like create_sdt, bulk_delete_sdt, and list_sdts, the agent receives no routing guidance beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.