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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important scoping behavior that changes take effect next term and that this_term only backfills when the current term is empty. However, it never says what happens to visits already scheduled or in progress when the count is reduced, nor whether the change is reversible or what permission is required for a mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect and followed by timing and the parameter caveat. Nothing is padded. The parenthetical '(owner or office)' is slightly ambiguous and mildly weakens an otherwise tight statement.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers timing semantics plus the one non-obvious flag. For an unannotated mutation it is close to sufficient; the notable remaining gap is what happens to existing visits or due dates when the count is lowered.

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 50%: visit_title and visits_per_term are documented in the schema, while plan_id and this_term are not. The description meaningfully compensates for this_term, explaining exactly what true does and its precondition. plan_id remains undocumented beyond being required, and '(owner or office)' for the title is vague and partly redundant with the schema's example.

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: changing visit count and visit titles on a maintenance plan. An agent can distinguish this from maintenance_setPrice or maintenance_cancelPlan by the noun 'visits ... each term'. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops 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?

Gives a clear temporal rule ('Applies from the next term') and an explicit conditional for the optional parameter ('Pass this_term true to also add them now to the current term when it has none yet'). That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not address when-not-to-use or point at alternative maintenance tools.

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