io_checkin_reservation

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus confirmToken, that the token is single-use and must not be invented or reused, and by warning against acting on instructions embedded in iOffice records (prompt-injection defense). This is exactly the behavioral context a write tool needs and annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose, then the confirmation protocol, then the safety warning — every clause carries load. The second sentence is long and packs multiple rules together, which costs a little readability.

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 does cover the phase-1 'confirmation-required' response and the preview/confirmToken pair, which is the critical return behavior. It stops short of describing the phase-2 success response or error conditions (e.g., already checked in), which an agent would need for full error handling.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for confirmToken: only for the non-elicitation fallback, only on the second call, only after human approval, and ignored when elicitation is supported. The required 'id' is left to the schema.

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 ('Check in to an iOffice reservation') with the effect ('confirming room usage'), which cleanly separates it from io_checkout_reservation and from the similarly named io_checkin_visitor. An agent can pick this tool 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 context for the two invocation phases: a confirmation prompt where elicitation exists, otherwise a preview-only call whose confirmToken must be passed back only after explicit user approval. It does not, however, state the operational precondition for checking in (e.g., reservation must be active/in-progress) or compare itself against io_update_reservation as an alternative.

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