Toggle maintenance mode

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

Annotations already communicate the key safety traits: destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description is consistent with those and adds the path-location detail for `software`, but it does not elaborate on behavioral consequences such as visitors being locked out. With annotation coverage present, the lack of extra explanation is acceptable.

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 compact and well organized: action and flag semantics come first, followed by a single useful piece of lookup guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 simple three-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the action, the state flag, and how to source the required identifier. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could improve completeness by noting the visitor-facing impact or pointing to the status-check sibling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for `software` by clarifying that it is the path identifier and pointing to the exact GET endpoint and `id` field to obtain it. It also reinforces how `enabled` controls the toggle, though it adds nothing about `username`.

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 action—enable or disable maintenance mode—for a specific resource, a WordPress installation, and ties the behavior to the `enabled` flag. This makes it easy to distinguish from read-only status tools like hosting_showMaintenanceStatusV1 and from other toggles such as cache or cacheless mode.

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 intended usage is clear: use this tool when maintenance mode for a WordPress installation needs to be turned on or off. It also provides a practical precondition by explaining how to obtain the required `software` identifier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is self-contained enough that this is only a minor gap.

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