log_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'adds' an entry (a write operation), returns the new entry's id, and specifies date format and cost type. This goes well beyond a tautological description, though it stops short of discussing permissions, failure modes, or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by key constraints and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions. The description covers the core purpose, date semantics, and return value, but lacks clarity on the identifier/name combination and does not fully explain all parameters. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains date format, cost as a number, and gives helpful examples for completed_date and scheduled_date. However, the parenthetical '(assetId / alias field / exact name)' is ambiguous about how identifier and name relate, and the description parameter is not explained at all.

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 ('Add') and resource ('maintenance-log entry to an item'), with concrete examples showing maintenance actions. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_maintenance, set_maintenance, and delete_maintenance by framing this as a create/log operation.

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 implies when to use the tool (to add a maintenance log) and gives examples for completed vs. scheduled dates, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use set_maintenance to update' or 'use list_maintenance to view'.

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