io_create_move

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the first call writes NOTHING, returns a preview plus confirmToken, and only a repeat call with the token proceeds. It also adds a prompt-injection warning about untrusted tool-result text, which is high-value behavioral context not present in any structured field.

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 middle sentence is dense and hard to parse, especially the parenthetical '(an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it)', which is confusing and only loosely relevant to creating a move. Some sentences earn their place, but readability suffers.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, the preview, and safety constraints well. It does not describe the successful response shape or what the created move returns, which is a minor gap 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining the confirmToken parameter's lifecycle — never on the first call, never invented, never reused, ignored under elicitation — adding meaning the schema's own field description only partially conveys.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new iOffice move request'), which is clearly distinct from the list/get/update/approve/cancel move siblings by name. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the resource is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 operational context: it asks the user to confirm first, and lays out the two-step fallback when elicitation is unavailable. It does not spell out when to prefer this over io_update_move or io_approve_move, but the confirmation workflow is well described.

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