id=space. Save observed_seq after reading changes. This does not complete tasks. Monotonic, safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for acknowledge_coordination_events. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: 'Monotonic, safe to retry' and 'This does not complete tasks.' These traits go beyond the annotations and are exactly what an agent needs to know before retrying or relying on the operation.
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 four short, front-loaded fragments with no wasted words. Each sentence contributes either a parameter mapping, an execution step, or an important behavioral caveat.
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 two-parameter acknowledgment tool with an output schema, the description plus schema fully cover the required id, the seq semantics, and retry safety. The schema even references get_coordination_inbox, so the needed workflow context is present.
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 50%: both id and seq have schema descriptions. The description adds the crucial semantic mapping that id refers to the space and that data.seq is the observed_seq to persist, which clarifies how to fill the nested data object.
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 clearly states the operation: saving observed_seq for a space after reading changes. It also draws an explicit line against task completion, which differentiates it from sibling tools such as transition_space_task.
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?
It gives a clear when-to-use context ('after reading changes') and a when-not-to-use caveat ('This does not complete tasks'). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for completing tasks, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.