Create Policy Window

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the window 'prevents policy execution,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like authorization needs, return values, or side effects.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured, but overall no waste.

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?

With 12 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It describes the effect on policy execution but does not cover the full context of the window, such as how the parameters interact or what the output schema contains. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of parameter explanations.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'Uses RFC 5545 RRULE' hinting at the 'rrule' parameter and states 'All fields are required,' but does not explain the meaning of most parameters. This adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a maintenance/exclusion window and explains its purpose (prevents policy execution). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_policy_window or delete_policy_window, though the context of 'create' is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions RFC 5545 RRULE but does not specify when to use this tool over other policy-related tools or when not to use it.

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