Create Policy Window

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: indicates the window prevents policy execution, all fields required, and specifics about rrule grammar. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false).

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?

Description is 4 sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose, then provides critical grammar details. Could be slightly more concise but no wasted content.

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?

Given 12 parameters (10 required) and an output schema, the description covers the most complex parts (rrule grammar, recurrence, status values). It doesn't explain return values, but output schema handles that. Some less complex parameters remain undocumented but are understandable from schema names.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for the complex rrule parameter (specifying exact grammars) and mentions status and recurrence accepted values. However, other parameters like window_type, window_name, duration_minutes, group_uuids, dtstart, etc., are not explained.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a maintenance/exclusion window to prevent policy execution on specified groups during defined periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_policy_window, delete_policy_window, and check_window_active.

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?

Explicitly states all fields are required and provides detailed grammar for the rrule field, including exact formats for recurrence types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from the sibling list.

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