snooze_monitor

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

Annotations already signal idempotence and non-read-only behavior; the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the auth requirement, the effect of suppressing alerts, and how clear=true removes an active window. This meaningfully supplements the structured 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 compact and well-structured: auth prerequisite, core action and effect, then parameter usage rule. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 the moderate complexity of four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call requirements: auth, semantics, mutual exclusivity, and clearing behavior. It could mention response or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter and the OR relationship, but the description adds the 'exactly one of' rule and concrete examples like '1h' and '24h'. This reinforces the intended usage beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, though the schema coverage is already high.

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 action: 'Set or clear a maintenance window on a monitor', and explains the effect that the monitor will not alert during the window. It distinguishes this tool from generic update tools by focusing on the maintenance/snooze concept, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like pause_monitor or resume_monitor.

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 context on when the tool is appropriate: managing a maintenance window to suppress alerts. It also gives explicit operational constraints such as requiring a write-scope API key and providing exactly one of duration, until, or clear. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives.

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