io_create_maintenance_request

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

Despite annotations only marking it non-read-only and destructive, the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the pre-write confirmation prompt, the two-step fallback where the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus confirmToken, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about text inside tool results. This is exactly the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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, but the second sentence is a dense run-on stacking the elicitation prompt, the no-network preview, the confirmToken, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference in one breath. The third sentence's injection warning is valuable but awkwardly phrased ('Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result...').

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risk: the confirmation gate, the no-side-effect preview, and the injection warning. It omits permission/auth requirements and what a successful creation returns, but the safety-critical behavior is well covered.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters, including a thorough confirmToken description. The description reinforces the confirmToken flow but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a new iOffice maintenance request'), making it clearly distinct from the read/update/accept/start/complete/archive maintenance siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 explains the confirmation mechanics but never states when to choose this tool over io_update_maintenance_request or the other maintenance siblings. The routing guidance an agent needs to pick the right maintenance tool is absent.

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