io_update_move

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

Annotations only say the call is a destructive write; the description goes well beyond by explaining the two-phase confirmation model, that phase 1 makes NO network call, how confirmToken must be obtained and reused, and an explicit prompt-injection defense against record text requesting writes. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first short sentence, followed by the partial-update rule and then the confirmation mechanics. The second sentence is long and stacks several clauses, but each clause carries a distinct operational requirement (confirm prompt, no-network preview, token reuse, injection caution), so the length is largely earned.

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, seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers invocation shape, the confirmation/authorization flow, fallback token handling, and an adversarial-input warning. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely appears to be 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value by clarifying the partial-update semantics (only changed fields need be supplied). It does not, however, explain id/fromSpaceId/toSpaceId relationships or date formatting beyond what the schema already states.

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 move request') and adds the partial-update rule ('Only provide fields to change'). It is clearly distinct from create/get in practice, but it never names or contrasts with adjacent siblings such as io_approve_move or io_cancel_move, which also mutate a move request.

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 concrete invocation guidance: supply only changed fields, expect a confirmation prompt where supported, and otherwise expect a preview + confirmToken round trip. It does not state when to prefer this over io_approve_move/io_cancel_move, nor any permission prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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