io_create_reservation

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing the two-phase confirmation protocol, that phase 1 makes NO network call, when the confirmToken may be passed, and an explicit prompt-injection warning against acting on instructions embedded in tool results. This is exactly the extra behavioral context 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the confirmation mechanics, then the safety warning. The middle sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct meaning; little is wasted given the complexity of the confirmation flow.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully explains what phase 1 returns (a preview and confirmToken). It does not describe the eventual success payload, but for a guarded mutation tool the confirmation contract is the critical missing piece and it is 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including confirmToken's full usage rules) is already documented in the schema. The prose reiterates the confirmToken lifecycle but adds no new syntactic or format detail, so the 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+resource ('Create a new iOffice room/space reservation'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the get/update/delete/cancel/checkin reservation siblings. An agent can identify this as the reservation-creation tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: confirm first, use the confirmation prompt where supported, otherwise fall into the preview/confirmToken two-step. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like io_update_reservation or io_checkin_reservation, but the create-vs-modify distinction is implied strongly by the verb.

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