end_resource_maintenance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the refusal behavior for known non-maintenance states, the null before.in_maintenance for unknown states, the confirmed=False preview behavior, and the recording condition. It does not contradict the annotations. A small gap is that it doesn't detail what happens to collected data or alerting during the transition, but the provided context is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers refusal, unknown-state behavior, return fields, preview mode, and undo in a tight sequence. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly dense and could be split into clearer sentences, but it earns its place with no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: refusal conditions, unknown-state handling, preview mode, return fields, and undo. It does not describe error cases (e.g., invalid resource_id) or the exact shape of the note, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirmed flag's preview semantics ('Default confirmed=False returns a preview without connecting') and by clarifying resource_id is a UUID from list_resources. It doesn't add much about target, but the schema already covers it. This exceeds the baseline 3 by tying parameters to behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Take one resource out of maintenance so Aria resumes alerting on it and collecting its data.' This clearly distinguishes it from its sibling start_resource_maintenance, and the [WRITE] prefix plus the rest of the description make the operation unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when the tool refuses (resource not in maintenance), when it proceeds (unknown state), and names the undo alternative: 'Undo: start_resource_maintenance (re-enters as manual maintenance).' It also explains the confirmed flag's role in preview vs. actual execution, giving an agent clear decision criteria.

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