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

With destructiveHint=true already present, the description adds meaningful context: it modifies the account, silences alerts for a time range, and omits repeatUnit for one-off windows. It does not detail auth requirements, reversibility, or what happens to existing windows, but it goes beyond the annotation to explain the operational 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the account-modification warning, followed by the core behavior and a key parameter note. Every sentence adds value with no padding.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and the repeatUnit distinction while annotations and a fully documented schema handle safety and parameters. It could clarify default scoping behavior when no tags or silenceAllAlerts are provided, but it is otherwise 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented. The description repeats the one-off guidance for repeatUnit but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a precise verb and resource: 'schedules a maintenance window that silences alerts for a time range.' It also flags the mutating nature with 'MODIFIES THE CHECKLY ACCOUNT,' which separates it from the many read-only list/get siblings. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 offers a use case ('e.g. during a deploy') but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as checkly_list_maintenance_windows. Usage is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer when this create tool is preferable to checking existing windows first.

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