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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the item is permanently removed, which is a destructive behavior. However, it does not mention the need for a valid lease, idempotency, or what happens if the receipt is invalid. The core destructive nature is stated, but context is minimal.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, with no wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple acknowledgment operation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values or error conditions. It also does not state the prerequisite of having a valid lease or that the receipt comes from a prior queue_fetch or queue_pop_lease call. An agent cannot fully determine how to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 50%: the required 'receipt' parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not explain what a receipt is or how to obtain one. The optional 'owner_key' is documented in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what is already present.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Acknowledge'), resource ('leased queue item'), and method ('by receipt, permanently removing it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like queue_nack (which would not remove) or queue_pop (which might not require a receipt).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as queue_nack or queue_pop_lease. The verb 'Acknowledge' hints at successful processing, but there is no mention of conditions for choosing this over others, nor any exclusions.

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