machine_maintenance

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds critical behavioral detail: 'Maintenance drains the machine (no new sessions)', 'confirm=False previews; confirm=True applies', and 'Audited.' These go beyond the annotation flags and give the agent concrete expectations about side effects and operational workflow.

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 verb and effect. The Args section is structured with one parameter per line, each line adding precise operational value without extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, the operational effect (draining/no new sessions), the confirm workflow, and the audit trail. It even cross-references machine_list and config.yaml, making it self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description compensates with an explicit Args list covering all four parameters: machine_ids (sourced from machine_list), enabled (boolean meaning), confirm (preview vs apply), and target (from config.yaml with default behavior). This fully disambiguates the schema and adds context not available elsewhere.

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 function: 'Enter (enabled=True) or exit (False) maintenance mode for machine(s).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like machine_reset or machine_remove by focusing specifically on maintenance mode and explaining the effect ('drains the machine (no new sessions)').

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 provides clear usage context: 'Maintenance drains the machine (no new sessions)' indicates when this tool is appropriate, and the confirm parameter explains preview vs. apply. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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