io_create_floor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the confirmation requirement, the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback, that the first call makes NO network call, and a prompt-injection warning against writes triggered by tool-result text. This is exactly the extra behavioral context that annotations cannot carry.

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 clause, and the confirmation mechanics follow in logical order. The closing security sentence is somewhat run-on and convoluted, but every sentence carries essential meaning 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?

For a destructive write with a non-trivial confirmation handshake and no output schema, the description covers the invoke path, the fallback, and the security guardrail adequately. Minor gaps remain – e.g., what happens after a successful create (return shape) – but those are secondary given the richness of the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including a thorough confirmToken description. The description reinforces the confirmToken semantics and its ordering rules but adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 floor') and scopes it ('within a building'), so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like io_update_floor or io_list_floors, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 clear procedural context for the confirmation flow (client elicitation vs. two-step fallback), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as io_list_floors (to check for an existing floor) or the update path, so alternative routing 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.