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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: changes are PUBLIC even when publish=false, publish=true additionally fans out to email/SMS/Slack/Teams/X, and vendor notification charges may apply. Those are consequences an agent could not derive from destructiveHint/openWorldHint alone, and they are exactly the facts needed before a write.

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?

Front-loads 'WRITE:' and the core action, then layers the visibility warning, delivery warning, and precondition in descending importance. Dense with parentheticals but every sentence carries a distinct risk or rule; nothing is redundant.

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 10-parameter destructive write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers visibility, broadcast side effects, cost, and confirmation requirements. Scheduling mechanics (should_automate_schedule timing) and the irreversibility/idempotency story are left to the schema and annotations.

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 schema already documents all ten parameters thoroughly, including publish and confirm semantics. The description reinforces the publish meaning but introduces no syntax, defaults, or field behavior not already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('schedule maintenance (a planned notice) on the status page') and pins it to the underlying API call with type=planned, which separates it from the incident path. Differentiation from sorryapp_create_incident is implied by 'planned' rather than stated by name, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Confirm the content and audience first') and explains the publish=true vs publish=false decision, which is real usage guidance for the broadcast choice. It never says when to prefer this tool over sorryapp_create_incident or sorryapp_create_notice_update, so routing logic is left to inference.

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