asset_maintenance

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

Annotations already disclose non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds no further behavioral detail: it does not state whether update/complete are reversible, what happens to omitted fields, whether partial updates are supported, or what the output contains. With annotations carrying meaningful safety signals, the description should add extra context but does not.

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 tight sentences: the first lists supported actions, the second scopes the tool and points to deletion. No filler, front-loaded with the capability summary, and easy to parse quickly.

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 handles many actions with 12 parameters, one required, and no schema descriptions, making guidance critical. Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain returns), the description does not clarify how parameters map to actions, what requiredness looks like per action, or typical workflows. It is inadequate for a multi-action tool with zero parameter documentation.

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 12 parameters (including action_name, maintenance_id, asset_id, dates, cost, notes, and maintenance_type_id) have no documented meaning anywhere. The description does not explain any parameter usage, requiredness, dependencies, or how they map to the various actions. It leaves the agent guessing how to populate the schema for each action.

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 enumerates specific actions (list, retrieve, create, update, complete, add/list notes) and clearly scopes the tool to Snipe-IT asset maintenance records and types. It is explicit about what the tool cannot do (delete) and names the sibling that handles deletion. It loses a point only because it packs multiple distinct operations into one tool, which can blur the primary purpose at a glance.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('Use for maintenance records only'), a clear exclusion ('cannot delete maintenance records or types'), and points to the alternative tool ('delete_resource'). An agent can immediately decide whether this tool is appropriate or should route to delete_resource.

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