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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the event moves to history, components return to operational, the message is public immediately, and notifications are off unless notify_* flags are enabled. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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 clauses front-load the operation type, the effects, and the notification caveat, and end with the endpoint. No sentence is wasted.

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 destructive, multi-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: what happens to the event, what happens to components, and how notifications behave. Only ancillary details like auth requirements or error handling are absent, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description only adds meaning to the notify_* family ('No notification is sent unless you switch it on'), which is already implied by the schema defaults. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (finish), resource (active maintenance event), and consequences (moves to history, components return to operational). This clearly separates it from siblings like start_maintenance, schedule_maintenance, and update_maintenance without opening their schemas.

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 establishes clear context: use it to finish an active event, and it is a WRITE operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it (e.g. versus update_maintenance), so it falls short of a 5, but the usage is unambiguous.

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