io_archive_maintenance_request

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the confirmation gate, the no-network-call guarantee on phase 1, the confirmToken round-trip, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted text in tool results. It stops short of stating what 'archive' actually does to the record (state change, reversibility).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the confirmation mechanics follow logically. The injection warning is slightly dense as a run-on sentence but carries real safety value, so little is wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the confirmation path and untrusted-input risk. It could be more complete by clarifying the post-archive state of the record, but the safety-critical behavior is well documented.

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 100% and both params are already documented, including confirmToken usage. The description reinforces the token flow but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Archive) and resource (iOffice maintenance request) with a scope constraint ('completed') that distinguishes it from io_complete_maintenance_request and other maintenance siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear procedural context (confirm first; fallback two-step flow) and a strong safety directive. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling write tools like io_update_maintenance_request or io_complete_maintenance_request, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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