Schedule maintenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: auto-start/auto-end defaults and the fact that affected components display UNDERMAINTENANCE while running. Useful effect disclosure, though it omits notification 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the default behavior/effect. No waste, though it is very short relative to a 10-parameter mutation tool.

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 write tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the action, defaults, and visible effect. It does not mention the notify/customer-communication implication, but the schema handles that, so the definition is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (including defaults for autoStart/autoEnd and the customer-facing warning for notify). The description only echoes the auto start/end default and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Announce a planned maintenance window.' The resource (maintenance window) is distinct from incident-oriented siblings, but the description never names an adjacent tool explicitly to differentiate. Clear purpose, mild gap on sibling routing.

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?

Usage is implied by 'planned maintenance window' (vs unplanned incidents handled by create_incident), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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