update_maintenance_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: only provided fields change, preventing the agent from assuming a full replace. However, it does not mention idempotency, whether the window must exist, how changing startAt/endAt affects recurrence, or what the response contains.

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 wasted words. The PATCH semantics note is essential and efficiently disambiguates the update behavior.

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 input schema is unusually rich, covering all parameters and recurrence nuance, so the terse description plus schema gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main omissions — usage guidance and response behavior — are minor for a straightforward partial-update operation.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in detail, including recurrence semantics and RFC3339 formatting. The description adds one useful general semantic — omitted fields retain their current values — but it is not parameter-specific and mostly reiterates what PATCH semantics implies.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('maintenance window'), and adds PATCH semantics to clarify partial update behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from create/delete/get/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_maintenance_window, set_maintenance_window_checks, or other siblings. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the window must already exist) or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The PATCH note explains how the update behaves, not when to choose it.

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