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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent write with open-world effects. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond those hints: the message goes public immediately and no notifications fire unless the notify_* flags are enabled.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the WRITE framing, the public/notification semantics, and the endpoint. Every clause earns its place.

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 safety-relevant behaviors an agent needs (immediate public visibility, opt-in notifications). It is only slightly thin on which maintenance states are eligible and whether the update can be reversed.

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 every parameter including the notify_* booleans is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the notify_* default-off behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('post a new status message on an active maintenance event') and even names the endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like schedule_maintenance, start_maintenance, finish_maintenance, and update_incident.

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 implies the precondition that the maintenance event must be 'active' and explains the notify switch behavior, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over start_maintenance, finish_maintenance, or schedule_maintenance, nor does it state any exclusion.

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