set_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses idempotency behavior (keyed on name+since, not target), silent failure on collision, timezone handling for since/till, and the mutual exclusivity of selection modes. This exceeds expectations for behavioral disclosure.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering critical caveats like idempotency, timezone, and selection constraints. It is well-structured with clear warnings and examples, appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers selection modes, idempotency, timezone, and all parameter semantics. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. There are no significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. It provides format and timezone for since/till, idempotency and prefix behavior for name, meaning of description, and mutual exclusivity with examples for location and hosts. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool creates a Zabbix maintenance window and specifies the two mutually exclusive host selection modes (location tag or explicit host names). It also differentiates from sibling acknowledge_problem by stating its unique function of suppressing NEW problem notifications.

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 explicitly contrasts with acknowledge_problem, telling when to use this tool over an alternative. It also provides clear selection constraints (exactly one of location/hosts) and advice on naming to avoid idempotency collisions, which guides appropriate usage.

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