io_delete_floor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them, disclosing that phase one writes NOTHING and returns a preview plus confirmToken, that only a repeat call with that token proceeds, and a prompt-injection warning about text inside tool results requesting writes.

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?

The core action and the confirmation mechanics are front-loaded and every sentence carries operational weight. The parenthetical about "an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target" is ambiguous and the final sentence's clause ordering is hard to parse on first read, which costs some clarity.

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?

For a destructive, multi-phase tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the two execution paths, what phase one returns, when confirmToken is valid, and a security caveat. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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% — both id and confirmToken are fully documented in the schema, including the "never on the first call, never invented, never reused" constraint the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Delete an iOffice floor by ID" is a specific verb+resource with the identifying parameter named. It cleanly distinguishes this from io_delete_building, io_delete_space, and io_update_floor without needing 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?

The description explains the invocation protocol clearly: a confirmation prompt when supported, otherwise a two-step preview-then-confirmToken flow. It does not discuss when deletion is preferable to any alternative, but no sibling offers a non-destructive path for a floor, so the missing comparison is minor.

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