The building works you know about and the guest finds out at seven

The damage is in the discovery, not the disturbance

Guests tolerate a closed pool. They do not tolerate having booked a hotel for its pool and finding out at check-in. The same fact disclosed a week earlier produces a guest who either chose it anyway or moved - and both of those outcomes are better for the hotel than the one where they arrive and feel deceived. This is the whole argument, and it is worth stating internally because disclosure always feels like it costs bookings.

Decide what counts as known, before someone decides case by case

Scheduled works, a known closure, a large event with amplified music, a lift out of service, a restaurant shut on the guest's only night. Write the list once and the question stops being a judgement made by whoever is on duty. The alternative is inconsistency, which is worse than either policy, because some guests are told and some are not and both compare notes online.

Say it precisely, and say what you are doing about it

"Some noise may occur" is the wording that loses trust twice - once for vagueness and once when the reality is worse. Give the hours, the location, the end date if there is one, and what the hotel is offering: a room on the other side, a rate adjustment, free cancellation, earplugs and an apology. A specific disclosure with a remedy reads as competence.

An assistant can disclose what it is told, and nothing else

This is the clearest case for a maintained list rather than a clever model. If the hotel keeps one short record of current disturbances with dates, the assistant tells every guest who asks, in their own language, at any hour. If it does not, the assistant will cheerfully describe the pool. The limitation is not the software; it is whether anybody writes the list.