create_maintenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the Pro-edition gate, which is real behavioral context. It omits other mutation-relevant behavior: whether subscribers are notified, whether the window can later be edited or cancelled with a sibling tool, and what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the operation is stated before the edition constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the edition gate adequately, and the schema fills in all parameter detail. Minor gaps remain around the response (e.g., the created window's ID) and notification side effects, but nothing blocks 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the RFC 3339 formats and component_ids is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Schedule") with a specific resource ("a maintenance window on the status page"), so the agent knows exactly what is created. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby write tools like create_incident or create_trigger, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Requires the Pro edition" is a genuine gating prerequisite that tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no guidance on when to use a maintenance window rather than create_incident, nor any stated preconditions for the required time range.

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