edit_mwindow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. It simply restates the action 'edit' without revealing partial update semantics, side effects, or reversibility, leaving the agent blind to the operation's behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, directly stating the action and resource. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite having a complete schema and output schema, the description gives no contextual information about the operation's behavior, such as partial update semantics or implications for recurring windows. This is too inadequate for a five-parameter mutation tool, leaving the agent without essential context.

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%, and each parameter has a detailed description (e.g., 'New start time. Unix timestamp (int) for one-time windows, HH:MM string for recurring windows'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description 'Edit an existing maintenance window' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_mwindow and delete_mwindow. It unambiguously states the tool's core function.

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?

No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing maintenance window, but it does not mention when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites like the window's existence.

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