io_delete_building

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the two-step confirmation fallback, that the first call makes NO network call, that the confirmToken must only be used after explicit approval, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted text in tool results.

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 in the first clause, then explains the confirmation behavior. Efficient overall, though the final sentence is long and grammatically tangled with its parenthetical list.

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?

Covers the destructive flow, confirmation semantics, and security concerns thoroughly for a no-output-schema tool. It omits a notable behavioral fact — whether deleting a building cascades to its floors/spaces — which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 both 'id' and 'confirmToken' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirmToken's conditional use but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema text already establishes; 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 ('Delete') and resource ('iOffice building') with the keying parameter ('by ID'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like io_delete_floor, io_delete_space, and io_update_building without opening any 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 operational context: it must be preceded by user confirmation, and the description routes the agent through the correct path depending on whether the client supports elicitation. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as archiving or updating instead of deleting, nor prerequisites like permissions.

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