set_maintenance

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

The description discloses the partial update behavior in detail: 'Only the args you pass change; the rest of the entry is re-sent as-is (the update is a full PUT).' This adds significant value beyond the idempotentHint annotation, explaining how the update works and why it is idempotent. It does not contradict annotations.

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 purpose, and every clause earns its place. The parenthetical pointer to list_maintenance and the full PUT explanation are both essential and compact.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: purpose, id acquisition, an example, and update semantics. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the schema provides names and types, and the description gives enough context to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions completed_date as an example. It does not explain the meaning of the other parameters (cost, name, description, scheduled_date) or how null vs omitted values are handled. The general 'Only the args you pass change' rule helps, but it does not fully clarify the semantics for six parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'maintenance entry', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_maintenance, list_maintenance, and delete_maintenance. The example of marking a scheduled entry completed by setting completed_date further clarifies the intended use.

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 clear guidance on where to get entry ids ('see list_maintenance for ids') and gives a concrete example use case. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the word 'Edit' and the sibling context make when-to-use implicit and reasonably clear.

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