io_create_building

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

Far exceeds what the annotations convey. Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds that confirmation is requested first, that on clients without elicitation the first call performs NO network call and returns a preview plus a confirmToken, and that only a repeat call with that token proceeds. It also adds an explicit prompt-injection safety warning about not acting on instructions embedded in tool results, which is high-value behavioral context for a destructive write.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the confirmation mechanism and then the safety warning. It is dense and the confirmToken sentence runs long, but each sentence carries distinct information (purpose, call flow, security) with no 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?

With 100% schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown for a destructive-write tool: the confirmation/preview protocol and the confirmToken contract. It does not enumerate every address field, but those are schema-documented, so nothing essential for a correct call 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 description coverage is 100% and all 11 fields (including the confirmToken lifecycle) are already documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 when coverage is saturated.

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 ('Create a new iOffice building'), so an agent immediately knows this is the create path for the building entity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling operators (io_update_building, io_create_floor, etc.), but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and matches the create convention used across siblings.

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 thoroughly explains the confirmation workflow (elicitation vs. two-step confirmToken fallback), which is usage guidance for the call flow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as io_update_building or the other create_* tools, so the create-vs-alternative decision is left to inference.

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