machine_maintenance

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses the impact on sessions ('drains the machine'), the audit trail ('Audited'), and the preview/apply distinction. Annotations only indicate a write operation, so this enriches the safety and behavior profile.

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 well-structured with a summary line, a brief explanatory paragraph, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and it is concise without missing critical information.

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?

The description covers behavior, parameters, and configuration context (target from config.yaml). Given no output schema, it still provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The mention of auditing and previews adds completeness.

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 0%, and the description fully explains all four parameters: machine_ids, enabled, confirm, and target, including their meanings, sources, and defaults. This completely compensates for the lack of 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 clearly states 'Enter (enabled=True) or exit (False) maintenance mode for machine(s)' with a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like machine_reset by describing the unique maintenance-mode behavior and its effect of draining the machine.

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?

It provides clear context that 'Maintenance drains the machine (no new sessions)' and explains the confirm parameter's preview/apply workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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