create_sdt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral value beyond these hints by warning that duration_minutes is minutes not hours/seconds, that specific SDT types require specific IDs, and that cloud resources may not support DeviceSDT. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a dense, high-value 'Common mistakes' section. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool supports 13 sdt_type enum values, but the description only covers three of them (DeviceSDT, DeviceGroupSDT, DeviceDataSourceSDT) plus one cloud caveat. It does not explain how to specify other types such as ServiceSDT, WebsiteSDT, or CollectorSDT, and it omits scheduling semantics like start time. With no output schema, these gaps make the description incomplete for the full range of supported invocations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying cross-parameter dependencies: DeviceSDT needs device_id, DeviceGroupSDT needs device_group_id, and DeviceDataSourceSDT needs device_id plus datasource_id. It also clarifies the units for duration_minutes, which the schema does not emphasize.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a scheduled downtime'. This clearly identifies the tool's role and distinguishes it from siblings like update_sdt, delete_sdt, and list_sdts. The 'requires write permission' note reinforces the operation type.

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 a useful precondition ('requires write permission') and internal routing guidance, such as using DeviceGroupSDT for cloud resources. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose create_sdt over sibling tools like bulk_create_device_sdt or update_sdt, so the when-to-use guidance is only partially complete.

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