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

Annotations provide safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds behavioral context: monitors keep running, alerts are suppressed, and the window is one-time. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's effect.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description explains the core behavior and use case. It could mention that the window is one-time only or that return value is the created window, but the output schema covers the latter. Overall, sufficiently 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It implies the purpose of monitor_ids but does not expand on other parameters.

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 schedules a one-time maintenance window that suppresses alerts for specified monitors while keeping them running. It uses a specific verb (schedule) and resource (maintenance window), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_monitor or pause_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 explicitly recommends using it 'before deploys or planned downtime,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for this tool.

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