create-status-page-maintenance

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description mentions scheduling but doesn't elaborate on impacts like display changes or subscriber notifications. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides only basic behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core function. While concise, it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created maintenance object ID) or provide behavioral context like notification behavior. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; it only notes 'affected components' which is already covered. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('schedule a maintenance window on a status page') and specifies it involves affected components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-status-page-degradation (for incidents) and update-status-page-maintenance (for updates).

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify that this is for planned maintenance as opposed to unplanned incidents handled by create-status-page-degradation. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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