Create Maintenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious effect: during maintenance, monitors are suppressed and show MAINTENANCE status instead of DOWN—this is valuable context not captured in the schema. It does not mention permission requirements or irreversibility, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It avoids verbosity and clearly communicates the purpose and key side effect without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to explain how affected monitors are selected, creating a confusion between the description ('affected monitors') and the input schema (which lacks a monitor list). This is a significant completeness gap for a creation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Notably, the description mentions 'affected monitors' but the input schema has no field to specify which monitors are affected, which is a parameter-semantics gap that the description does not address.

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 'Schedules a new maintenance window' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining the behavioral outcome: affected monitors show MAINTENANCE status instead of DOWN, which is unique among sibling tools.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: you want to schedule maintenance during which monitors are suppressed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are mostly unrelated (monitors, notifications, status pages), so the intended use is evident.

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