ops-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if maintenance overlaps with existing events, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise at just 5 words ('Create scheduled maintenance on Statuspage'). It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what happens after creation, error conditions, permissions required, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The combination of no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description leaves significant gaps for proper tool understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 action ('Create scheduled maintenance') and the target resource ('on Statuspage'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'ops_schedule_maintenance' or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose between these similar-sounding 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ops_schedule_maintenance' or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating maintenance events on Statuspage.

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