Set or clear maintenance window

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out what is suppressed (deadline incidents, HTTP failing probes), the exact exception semantics ('a site still failing afterwards opens one on its next failure'), and what is explicitly still notified (fail pings, queued blocked pages, runaway ping rate, routed note/started/success/every-run events). That is the behavioral detail an agent needs to predict side effects before mutating state.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth requirement and the core action, and every sentence carries non-redundant content. The second sentence is a dense run-on with nested parentheticals (the blocked_timeout_s aside, the probe-counting clause), which costs readability but not correctness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: authorization requirement, valid parameter combinations, suppression scope, notification carve-outs, and post-window failure behavior are all present. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and each parameter is already documented with its format (RFC 3339, Go duration string), so the schema carries the burden. The description only reinforces the mutual-exclusivity rule with 'exactly one', adding marginal semantics over the per-parameter 'One of duration, until or clear' notes.

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?

States a specific verb ('sets or clears') and resource ('a maintenance window on a monitor'), so an agent knows exactly what state it manipulates. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related pause_monitor/resume_monitor siblings, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a suppression mechanism.

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?

Gives real preconditions ('Requires the write scope or higher') and a hard selection rule ('Takes exactly one of duration, until or clear=true'), which tells the agent how to shape the call. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over pause_monitor or resume_monitor, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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