set_vdi_machine_maintenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot convey: maintenance drains the machine (no new sessions), the default call is a non-mutating preview, an unreadable machine state causes a refusal, and the action is audited. It does not mention whether exiting maintenance restores sessions or how partial multi-machine failures are handled, so not quite a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] tag and the enter/exit semantics, then the drain behavior, then the preview/confirm protocol. The final two sentences overlap somewhat ('wait for their decision' vs 'do not set confirm=True on your own'), but the redundancy is deliberate safety emphasis rather than 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 destructive-capable, four-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the non-mutating preview path, the contents of the returned blast_radius (machine ids, states, assigned users), the refusal condition, and the audit trail. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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 target, confirm, enabled and machine_ids; the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the enabled and confirm semantics rather than adding syntax or format guidance, so it earns the baseline but no more.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+mode ('Enter (enabled=True) or exit (False) maintenance mode for machine(s)'), including the boolean that selects the direction. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like reset_vdi_machine, remove_vdi_machine, or set_desktop_pool_enabled.

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?

Explicitly states the two-step protocol: a bare call returns blast_radius and changes nothing, confirm=True applies it, and the agent must show blast_radius to the user and wait rather than self-confirming. It even pre-empts the failure mode of confirming because the user asked earlier, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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