Update maintenance run

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

The description adds the critical behavioral trait that updates are asynchronous, which is not captured by annotations. The annotations include openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with the most important information (purpose) first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, async nature, post-update suggestion, and API endpoint. 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?

For a simple update tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, async behavior, API endpoint, and a follow-up action. It could mention that only scheduledAt is updatable, but the schema implicitly indicates this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already describes the scheduledAt parameter with format and constraints, and maintenanceRunID with example and pattern. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 performs an update on a maintenance run using a specific verb and resource. It also includes the API endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like render_trigger_maintenance or render_retrieve_maintenance.

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 explicitly notes that updates are asynchronous and directs the user to the retrieve endpoint to check status. This provides clear context on usage, though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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