schedule_downtime

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: mutual exclusivity of monitor_id and monitor_tags, fallback to all matching scope when neither is set, and the open-ended downtime behavior that requires update_downtime later. This goes beyond the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy; it is concise yet informative.

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 tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, parameter constraints, and edge cases like open-ended downtimes. Output schema exists, so not explaining return format is acceptable.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds critical parameter semantics not duplicated in the schema: the rule that at most one of monitor_id/monitor_tags should be set, and the behavior when neither is set. This helps agents choose parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Schedule a downtime to mute a scope of monitors (or one monitor) over a time window.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like silence_monitor by noting when the latter is simpler, providing explicit differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' examples (silencing many monitors by scope/tag, or muting on a schedule with a known end time) and names an alternative tool for simpler cases ('silence_monitor is simpler'). This directly addresses when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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