Location Set Maintenance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the operation is broad-impact, affecting ALL devices in the location. However, it does not disclose whether an existing maintenance window gets overridden or how the operation interacts with active maintenance, though these are minor given the idempotentHint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence — 'Set maintenance mode for all devices in a location' — with zero filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, conveying the verb, resource, and scope in under ten words.

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 total package is strong: a rich 100%-covered schema detailing formats and defaults, an output schema, and consistent annotations describing the mutation profile. The description's brevity is mostly sufficient, though it could have named the sibling alternatives for maintenance scoping, leaving that differentiation to inference from tool names.

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% and the payload schema itself documents the required duration in 'H:i' format, optional title/notes/start fields, and the start default of now. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('maintenance mode') with an explicit scope ('all devices in a location'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools device_set_maintenance and devicegroup_set_maintenance operating at different levels. An agent can immediately recognize this as the location-wide variant of the maintenance operation.

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 scope statement implies usage — an agent targeting all devices in a location should pick this tool — but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it. Routing relies on the naming pattern (location_ vs device_ vs devicegroup_set_maintenance) rather than explicit guidance.

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