io_delete_reservation

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

Annotations declare destructive=true/readOnly=false, and the description adds far more: phase 1 makes NO network call, only a repeat call with the token proceeds, the token is never reused or invented, and it carries a security warning against tool-result-driven injection. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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-loaded with the core action and the confirmation contract, packing a lot of necessary detail into a compact block. The final sentence is dense and slightly run-on but every clause carries operational weight.

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, yet the description explains what phase 1 returns (a preview and a confirmToken) and how to proceed. For a destructive, two-phase tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents 'id' and 'confirmToken' basics. The description still adds genuine semantics: confirmToken applies only to the non-elicitation fallback, must never appear on the first call, and is ignored when elicitation is supported.

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 ('Delete/cancel an iOffice reservation by ID'), which cleanly separates it from io_get_reservation, io_update_reservation, and io_cancel_move. An agent can identify the target entity and operation 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 procedural context: confirm first via elicitation, or fall back to a two-step preview+confirmToken flow. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for cancellation vs. deletion, but the when-to-call procedure is well specified.

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