apply_maintenance_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It notes 'nontransactional,' implying individual statements are not wrapped in a transaction, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as potential downtime, locking behavior (though hinted by 'skip_locked' and 'lock_timeout_seconds' parameters), required permissions, or whether it is destructive. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 a single concise sentence, well front-loaded with the key action. It avoids fluff, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'nontransactional' implies in practice, the need for a review_hash from create_maintenance_plan, the possible effects of the operation, or how to interpret results. The tool is complex (maintenance operations) and requires more contextual detail.

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 80% (8 of 10 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter information beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide usage tips.

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 'Apply an exact reviewed nontransactional maintenance plan,' which clearly indicates it executes a pre-reviewed plan. The verb 'apply' and noun 'maintenance plan' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_maintenance_plan' (creation) and 'get_maintenance_status' (status check). However, it does not specify the exact maintenance operations (vacuum, analyze, etc.) that the plan encompasses.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a plan must exist), nor provide when-not-to-use or explicit comparisons to siblings like 'reconcile_maintenance_operation.' The description leaves the agent to infer usage context from the parameter names.

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