ncloud_update_maintenance

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether a new schedule replaces the old one, or what permissions are needed for a mutation against a nested dimensions object.

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 tightly-worded sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.

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 annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, no output schema, and fully-documented parameters, the definition is minimally viable. The nested dimensions semantics and the effect of partial updates remain unexplained, which is a real gap for a 6-parameter update tool.

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%, so every parameter (including maintenanceId, startTime/endTime in epoch ms, and the nested dimensions map) is documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing planned maintenance schedule in Cloud Insight), which is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling maintenance tools (ncloud_create_maintenance, ncloud_delete_maintenance, ncloud_get_maintenance_detail, ncloud_list_maintenances), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 'existing' implies a schedule must already exist, but there is no statement of when to use this versus create/delete/get siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage context is left almost entirely to inference.

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