io_complete_maintenance_request

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

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: the first call writes NOTHING and returns a preview plus confirmToken, only a repeat call proceeds, and the confirmToken must be user-approved and never reused. It also discloses a prompt-injection risk model, which is genuinely useful context for a 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?

The purpose is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but the remaining text is a dense, clause-heavy block; the final sentence ('Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result...') is grammatically tangled and slow to parse. The confirmation-mechanism boilerplate is long relative to the tool-specific content.

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 definition covers the write semantics, the confirmation gating, and the safety boundary, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of describing what a successful completion returns (beyond the confirmToken response) or any permission requirements.

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 id, resolution, and confirmToken are already fully documented in the schema (including the confirmToken two-step rules). The description reinforces the phase-1/phase-2 framing but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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: 'Mark an iOffice maintenance request as complete.' An agent can distinguish it from io_start/io_accept/io_update_maintenance_request. However, it never addresses the closest-looking sibling, io_archive_maintenance_request, which an agent could easily confuse with this terminal-state action.

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?

The description gives detailed invocation guidance (confirm first, phase-1 preview, repeat with confirmToken), which is about how to call rather than when to choose this tool. It never names an alternative or states when-not to use it versus archive_maintenance_request or update_maintenance_request, so selection guidance stays implied.

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