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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious side-effect context the annotations cannot express: notify_subscribers defaults to false and enabling it emails subscribers. It does not explain what happens to fields omitted from the request (left unchanged vs. cleared), which matters given the destructive hint.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded followed by the side effect and the usage gate. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the riskiest default and the invocation gate but leaves partial-update semantics and most field formats undocumented. Adequate to call safely in the common case, incomplete for anything beyond setting notify_subscribers.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains notify_subscribers' default and effect. Nothing is said about weekdays (integer array encoding), starts_at format/timezone interaction, duration_seconds, or the nested status_components shape.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (update) and resource (maintenance window), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_maintenance_window and cancel_maintenance_window. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the verb+resource pairing is sufficient to distinguish.

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?

"Run only when the user asked to change this window" is an explicit precondition/exclusion that keeps the agent from proactively editing windows. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (create/cancel) for adjacent intents, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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