io_cancel_move

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false; the description goes much further by disclosing the two-phase confirmation flow, that phase 1 makes NO network call, that confirmToken must never be invented or reused, and a prompt-injection warning about content inside iOffice records. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 destructive action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the confirmation contract follows logically. The final sentence is dense and slightly awkward ('Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because...'), which costs a point but the content still 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the phase-1 'confirmation-required' response shape (preview + confirmToken) an agent will receive. For a destructive tool with a non-obvious call protocol, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and the confirmToken description already documents the fallback-only, never-reuse semantics. The description reinforces the token flow but adds no new 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 and resource ('Cancel an iOffice move request'), which clearly separates it from io_update_move, io_approve_move, io_get_move and io_list_moves. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 describes when the tool proceeds with a network call versus when it returns a preview plus confirmToken, including the elicitation-capable vs fallback client distinction. It also states a hard when-not rule ('Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken') driven by untrusted text in tool results.

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