io_delete_floor

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that phase-1 makes NO network call, returns a preview plus confirmToken, that the token must never be invented or reused, and warns against prompt-injection-driven writes from iOffice record text. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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, and each sentence carries real information (confirmation modes, token rules, safety warning). The final security sentence is dense and slightly hard to parse, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of the phase-1 'confirmation-required' preview/token response is exactly what the agent needs to interpret results. For a destructive, two-phase tool this is fully sufficient.

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% and both params are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the restrictive semantics of confirmToken (only for the two-step fallback, only after explicit in-chat approval, never reused), adding value beyond the schema text.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource ('Delete an iOffice floor by ID'), which cleanly separates it from io_delete_building and io_delete_space among the siblings.

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?

It spells out the operational sequence (confirm-first, two-step fallback when elicitation is unavailable, when to pass confirmToken) and points to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It doesn't quite frame explicit when-not-to-use conditions versus alternatives, but for a deletion tool the procedural guidance is clear and actionable.

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