update_maintenance_window

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

The description discloses that the endpoint is a full replacement (PUT, not PATCH) and that omitted fields fall back to defaults rather than preserving existing values. It also specifies time format requirements. With no annotations provided, the description does a good job of covering behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention rate limits, permissions, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the main purpose, then the common use case, then the important PUT vs PATCH warning, time format, and a field list. It is front-loaded with critical information and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly trimmed.

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 description covers the key aspects: use case, replacement behavior, field meanings, and time format. With an output schema present (not shown), return values are presumably documented. The description could mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient for an update tool with moderate complexity.

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 provides descriptions for each property, so the description adds value by explaining the replacement semantics and emphasizing that missing fields result in defaults. It also lists the fields in a readable format, reinforcing the schema. The context signal shows 0% schema description coverage, but the schema actually has descriptions; the description's added value lies in the behavioral context.

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 it updates an in-flight or scheduled maintenance window, specifies the common use case of extending an active window, and distinguishes it from creating or canceling. The verb 'update' with resource 'maintenance window' and the specific scope (in-flight or scheduled) provide clear purpose.

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 says the most common use is extending an active window when a deploy runs longer than expected, providing clear context. It also warns about the PUT vs PATCH behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like cancel_maintenance_window.

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