io_create_maintenance_request

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

Annotations declare destructive/open-world/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the first call writes NOTHING and returns a preview plus confirmToken, the token must never be invented or reused, and it warns against acting on instructions embedded in tool results (prompt-injection defense). This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a dense run-on and the parenthetical '(an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it)' is confusing and arguably belongs to other tools' behavior rather than this create tool.

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 8 params at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description's job is mainly the write/confirmation semantics, which it covers thoroughly. The only shortfall is the absence of any return-value shape for the success path (a new request ID, presumably), though this is minor given no output schema exists.

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 8 parameters (including the richly documented confirmToken) are already explained in the schema, so the description need not compensate. It restates the confirmToken rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a new iOffice maintenance request'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the create_* siblings (mail, reservation, visitor). However, after that first clause the description becomes almost entirely about the confirmation protocol, so the differentiation is carried by the resource noun rather than an explicit statement of scope.

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 confirmation flow ('Asks the user to confirm first', elicitation vs two-step fallback) is well-specified, but the dimension asks about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. There is no guidance on when to create a request versus update/accept/start/complete an existing one, so selection among siblings is only implied by the noun.

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