Trigger maintenance run

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the action is asynchronous, and it describes state transitions. It also provides the API endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four efficient sentences: purpose, async behavior, follow-up steps, and API endpoint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and follow-up steps. It could mention the response structure, but the state change description and reference to the retrieve endpoint are sufficient for a simple one-param 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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not describe the maintenenceRunID parameter beyond the schema's pattern and example. The name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning like where to obtain the ID or its role.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'scheduled maintenance run', with the ID parameter. It distinguishes from siblings like render_retrieve_maintenance by emphasizing the triggering action versus retrieval.

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 implies usage for triggering a scheduled maintenance run and provides guidance on checking progress via the retrieve endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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