update_downtime

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

Annotations already declare destructive and read-only status. The description adds crucial warning that there is no undo, and the previous configuration is unrecoverable. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by clear usage guidance and a critical warning. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately captures the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and irreversibility. It does not detail every optional parameter, but the schema covers that. Slight room for mentioning partial update behavior, but overall complete.

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%, and each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics; it repeats the 'now' usage already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 modifies an existing downtime, specifically its scope, schedule, or message. The verb 'modify' and the resource 'existing downtime' are specific, and the mention of 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like schedule_downtime.

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 clear when-to-use scenarios: extending/shortening a window, changing scope, or ending early with 'now'. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection among sibling tools.

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