io_checkout_reservation

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description goes well beyond annotations: it discloses the confirmation flow, the no-network-call preview phase, the confirmToken contract, and an explicit prompt-injection warning against writes requested by text inside tool results. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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-loads the action, then the confirmation mechanics, then the safety rule. Dense but every clause carries operational weight; the parenthetical referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE keeps depth out of the main text.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both response phases (prompt vs. preview-plus-token), the required follow-up call, and the security posture. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 parameter's own schema description already spells out the two-step fallback and 'never on the first call' rules. The description reinforces this but adds no new syntax or format detail, 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 ("Check out of an iOffice reservation") plus the side effect of releasing the room early. This clearly separates it from io_checkin_reservation, io_delete_reservation, and the get/list siblings without needing to open another 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?

Explains the confirmation protocol in detail: prompt when supported, otherwise a preview/confirmToken two-step fallback. It tells the agent when the token must and must not be supplied, but it does not explicitly compare against the sibling alternatives (e.g. checkout vs. delete) for ending a reservation.

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