io_create_move

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the elicitation-based confirmation prompt, the two-step fallback where the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus confirmToken, and that a repeat call with the token is what commits the write. It also discloses a prompt-injection threat model, which no annotation or schema field conveys.

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 and confirmation protocol are front-loaded, and the injection warning earns its place for a destructive mutation. There is some duplication between the confirmToken prose and the already-verbose confirmToken schema description, which slightly dilutes efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so partially by naming the phase-1 'confirmation-required' preview and confirmToken response. For a destructive create with 8 parameters, it is largely complete, though it never states what the successful creation response contains.

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 an extensive confirmToken description. The prose largely restates the confirmToken protocol rather than adding format, validation, or interaction semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is 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 move request'), which is enough to distinguish it from io_update_move, io_get_move, io_list_moves, io_approve_move and io_cancel_move at a glance. It does not explicitly name any sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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 strong procedural and safety guidance about how to invoke the tool (confirm first, never blind-repeat a write, honor the confirmToken flow), but it never says when to choose this tool over io_update_move or io_cancel_move, nor what preconditions a move request requires. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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