Update a scheduled downtime window by its SDT ID, changing the start time, end time, or comment while preserving all other settings.
Update a scheduled downtime (requires write permission). Uses fetch-modify-PUT to preserve unmodified fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sdt_id | Yes | SDT ID to update | |
| comment | No | New SDT comment | |
| end_date_time | No | New end time in epoch milliseconds | |
| start_date_time | No | New start time in epoch milliseconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool uses a fetch-modify-PUT pattern to preserve unmodified fields. This is critical behavioral context for an agent: it implies partial updates are safe and omitted fields will not be reset. It also adds the write-permission requirement, which the annotations do not express.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a useful implementation note in the second clause. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is updated, the permission needed, and the partial-update behavior. It does not describe return values or edge cases, but the schema handles parameter details, and the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 already covers all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by stating that unmodified fields are preserved, which tells the agent that omitting optional parameters like comment or start_date_time will not clear those fields. It does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema, but the fetch-modify-PUT explanation enhances parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb and resource phrase, 'Update a scheduled downtime,' which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_sdt and delete_sdt through the verb 'Update' while naming the exact resource being modified.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sdt or delete_sdt. It only notes a write-permission prerequisite, which is a precondition rather than routing guidance. An agent must infer usage from the tool's name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.