zabbix_delete_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the operation is a high-risk, irreversible write; describes dry_run preview behavior; and notes that the BEFORE definition is recorded in priorState. This gives an agent a strong safety model of the operation.

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. The risk warning is front-loaded, the dry_run and priorState behavior is stated in two lines, and an Args list cleanly maps to the schema. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler.

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 simple delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety implications, all parameters, preview mode, and state tracking. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and avoid destructive mistakes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. maintenance_id is tied to zabbix_maintenances, dry_run is explained as preview-without-deleting, and target is described with a default behavior. This adds valuable semantics beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Delete a Zabbix maintenance window.' It also signals destructive intent with '[WRITE][risk=high]' and 'IRREVERSIBLE — no undo,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like zabbix_create_maintenance and zabbix_maintenances.

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 gives clear context: this tool deletes an existing maintenance window, and the maintenance_id should come from zabbix_maintenances. It mentions the dry_run preview option as a safe way to test. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is evident.

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