Create asset maintenance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real non-obvious behavior: title is dual-sent as 'name' for Snipe-IT 8.x and 'title' for older servers, and supplier_id is required by the 8.2.0 API — server-version quirks an agent could not infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with endpoint and required fields, then the two version-specific caveats. Mostly waste-free, though restating start_date's YYYY-MM-DD format duplicates the schema description.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, this covers required fields, formats, and version pitfalls well. Minor gap: it does not say what comes back on success (e.g., the created maintenance record) or whether the asset's status changes as a side effect of destructiveHint.

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 89%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes beyond it by explaining the dual name/title transmission for the 'title' parameter and the conditional requirement status of supplier_id across server versions, which is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('POST /maintenances: schedule or record a maintenance event') and lists the required fields, so the agent knows exactly what this creates. It is clearly distinct from the read-only snipeit_list_maintenances sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the endpoint and required-field list, and there is a conditional hint ('pass supplier_id unless your server accepts it missing'), which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over snipeit_raw_request or snipeit_list_maintenances, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., asset state) are given.

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