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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the message becomes public immediately, that notifications are opt-in via notify_* flags, and that affected components display planned maintenance. It does not address reversibility or behavior when the maintenance is not pending, which are relevant for a destructiveHint=true operation.

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?

One dense sentence with the WRITE marker and endpoint up front, then the key state change and the notification caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics: state transition, immediate public visibility, and opt-in notifications. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so the remaining gaps (error conditions, default status page resolution) are minor.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by grouping the notify_* booleans as the notification opt-in switch and noting the message is published regardless. It does not clarify statuspage_id's default or message_subject usage beyond the schema text.

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 (start), resource (scheduled maintenance), and the exact state transition (pending to active), including the visible effect on components. This clearly separates it from finish_maintenance, schedule_maintenance, and update_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?

The phrase 'start a scheduled maintenance now' makes the precondition clear (a pending/scheduled maintenance must already exist), which routes the agent away from schedule_maintenance. It stops short of naming siblings or stating what to do if the maintenance is not in pending state.

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