io_create_space

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the entire two-phase confirmation protocol, the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE dependency, the preview + confirmToken fallback behavior, and an explicit prompt-injection warning against acting on instructions embedded in tool results. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent clause carries safety-relevant content rather than filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted, but no statement is wasted.

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 is the sole vehicle for return-value behavior, and it adequately explains the preview/confirmation-required response shape. It is nearly complete for an agent's needs, with the only minor gap being what a successful final call returns.

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 seven parameters including confirmToken. The description adds meaningful context only for confirmToken (never on first call, never invented, never reused), which restates rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with scoping detail ('Create a new iOffice space (room) on a floor'), which clearly distinguishes it from the building/floor creation siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource noun disambiguates it well enough for an agent to select it.

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 covers the confirmation workflow (client-side prompt vs. two-step preview/confirmToken fallback) as a usage precondition, which is helpful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over io_update_space or how it relates to creating a floor first, leaving the primary 'when to use' question implied by the verb.

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