create_maintenance_windows

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and openWorldHint true. The description adds crucial behavioral context: partial failures possible and per-device statuses in response. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences: purpose, body shape, and a warning about partial failures. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description hints at response behavior (partial failures) and refers to external docs for complex field details. Adequately complete for a create tool, though could elaborate on expected response structure.

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% (both parameters described). The description restates the shape and directs to external docs for maintenanceWindows details, adding minimal extra semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'Add' and clearly identifies the resources: patch maintenance windows and devices. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_maintenance_windows (read) and update_maintenance_windows (update/overwrite) by focusing on creation.

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 context is clear: use this tool to assign new maintenance windows to devices. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., update_maintenance_windows), but the verb 'Add' strongly implies creation, providing adequate contextual guidance.

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