io_update_maintenance_request

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the two-phase confirmation contract (preview + confirmToken, no network call on phase 1), the elicitation fallback via MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, and an explicit prompt-injection warning against acting on instructions found inside tool results. That is exactly the mutation/auth/irreversibility context an agent needs.

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 purpose, then the confirmation mechanics, then the safety warning — a logical order with little filler. The final safety sentence is long and packs multiple record types, but it is functional rather than redundant.

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 partial-update tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the non-obvious behavior (confirmation flow, token semantics, injection guard) that an agent cannot derive from structured fields. Nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it establishes patch semantics ('only provide fields to change') for the optional editable fields, and re-emphasizes the confirmToken's single-use, never-invented contract. This is meaningful value beyond the schema, though it adds no format/syntax detail for id, priorityId, or assignedUserId.

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 maintenance request') and scopes it to partial updates ('Only provide fields to change'). This clearly separates it from io_create_maintenance_request and the state-transition siblings (io_accept/io_start/io_complete/io_archive).

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 operating context: supply only the fields being changed, and the tool will confirm with the user before writing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. io_get_maintenance_request to read current values before updating), so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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