io_complete_maintenance_request

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond destructiveHint=true: the mandatory user-confirmation gate, the fact that the first fallback call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus confirmToken, and the rule that the token is only replayed after explicit approval. It also discloses the prompt-injection hazard (untrusted text in results requesting writes), which the 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the confirmation contract and then the safety warning. The injection sentence is long but carries distinct actionable content rather than filler.

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 covers what an agent needs before invoking: confirmation preconditions, the token round-trip, and the anti-injection rule. Remaining gaps (error/return handling) are minor given the annotations already flag the destructive nature.

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 well documented in the schema itself, including the token's lifecycle. The description adds no new per-parameter meaning, 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Mark an iOffice maintenance request as complete'), which is clearly separable from sibling state-transition tools such as io_accept_maintenance_request, io_start_maintenance_request and io_archive_maintenance_request. 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?

It gives explicit conditions under which the call proceeds (user confirmation first; elicitation-capable client vs the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback) and warns against making the write or replaying the token reflexively. It stops short of positioning this against nearby alternatives like archive or update, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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