io_update_floor

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond, disclosing the confirmation-prompt behavior, the preview/confirmToken no-network-call phase-1 semantics, that confirmToken must never be invented or reused, and a prompt-injection warning against acting on text inside tool results. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 before the confirmation mechanics, and every sentence carries operational weight. The injection warning is somewhat verbose but is a safety-critical instruction that justifies its length.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond destructiveHint, the description covers invocation, confirmation flow, token handling, and the safety caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it establishes partial-update semantics ('only provide fields to change') and clarifies the confirmToken is only for the elicitation-less fallback and must follow explicit user approval. It does not add format details for the other fields.

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 ('Update an existing iOffice floor') and adds the partial-update scope ('Only provide fields to change'). The resource name distinguishes it from io_update_building/io_update_space siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 guidance on how to invoke it: supply only changed fields, and the call will prompt for confirmation. It explains the two-step fallback path and when confirmToken applies. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing against sibling update tools, but the context is otherwise well covered.

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