create_scheduled_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 reveal that the tool 'Sends a POST request' and lists the payload fields, which adds concrete behavioral context beyond just 'create'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. This is moderate transparency, slightly better than a bare description but not comprehensive.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds relevant technical detail (HTTP method and fields) without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, making it well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 3 required, output schema present) and excellent schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and input fields, while the output schema handles return values. It does not, however, mention any operational constraints (e.g., date validation), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the main parameters (name, dates, monitor IDs, description) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify formats, constraints, or examples beyond the schema descriptions, so it contributes little additional parameter-level value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a scheduled maintenance window.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_scheduled_maintenance and list_scheduled_maintenance. The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states the action but gives no prerequisites, no explicit exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. Unlike the high-calibration example that explicitly names an alternative, this description relies solely on the verb 'create' to imply usage, which falls short of clear usage guidance.

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