cancel_maintenance_window

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: alerts resume, window record is removed, audit log preserves history, and there is no undo. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: effect on alerts, removal vs. audit preservation, lifecycle behavior for windows not yet started, and the irreversibility. With an output schema present and simple parameter, this is complete for a cancellation 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?

The single parameter 'window_id' is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description does not elaborate on its format or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Cancel a maintenance window') and its immediate effect ('alerts resume immediately'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_maintenance_window, update_maintenance_window, etc.

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?

Explicitly provides when to call it: 'Call this AFTER a deploy or maintenance operation completes successfully.' Also explains what happens if the window hasn't started and warns about the lack of an 'uncancel' operation.

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