dismiss_status_page_maintenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key destructive trait — that dismissing deletes the draft rather than publishing it — which is honest about side effects. However, it omits what happens if invoked on a non-draft window, whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, and any prerequisite checks on page_id or window_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core verb comes first, the resource scope follows, and the behavioral clarification is packed into an efficient parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (2 simple string params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the two essentials an agent needs — what the action does and that it applies only to drafts. The main gap is edge-case behavior for non-draft windows, which is more than a minor omission but not crippling for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw identifiers page_id and window_id. The phrase 'draft maintenance window' loosely maps to window_id, but nothing explains that page_id identifies the status page owning the window or how the two relate, leaving the agent to infer from tool name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dismiss') with a scoped resource ('a draft maintenance window') and clarifies the operational meaning with the parenthetical '(deletes it without publishing)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_status_page_maintenance and delete_status_page_maintenance without requiring the agent to open their schemas.

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 qualifier 'draft' implies this tool is only appropriate for unpublished maintenance windows, which is a genuine usage signal. However, it never names alternatives such as cancel_maintenance_window or delete_status_page_maintenance, nor states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for published windows). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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