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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds that this modifies live status-page data and can trigger subscriber notifications, plus a concrete side-effect (returns the updated maintenance). It stops short of spelling out what is irreversibly lost or what permissions are required, but this is well beyond what the annotation provides.

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 compact sentences with the destructive nature and partial-update rule front-loaded, followed by the endpoint mapping. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 an 11-param mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the key risks (live data, notifications) and update semantics. It could say more about whether the update is reversible or how notification is suppressed, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 11 params. The description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: that this is a partial update where omitted fields are left untouched, which resolves the ambiguity of whether unset fields are cleared.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('UPDATES an existing scheduled maintenance by id') and pins the operation to an API endpoint. The word 'existing' plus the required maintenance_id clearly separates it from the create/delete maintenance siblings.

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?

Gives an invocation rule ('Send only the fields you want to change') and warns that it modifies live data and may notify subscribers, which implies the context for cautious use. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over instatus_update_incident or instatus_create_maintenance, so selection guidance is only implied.

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