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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect ('sem responder' – closes without replying), but says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, or what happens when neither id nor with is supplied. Adequate but with clear gaps 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?

Two tight clauses that front-load the action and the scope, followed by the alternative routing in one sentence. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, effect scope, and the fallback tool, which is most of what's needed. However, both parameters are optional (required=0) and there is no output schema, yet the description never states the behavior when neither is passed or what the result looks like – a meaningful gap for a resolve/close operation.

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 schema already documents id (message number) and with (handle). The description adds value by explaining their effect scope: id resolves one message, with resolves all of that agent's pending messages, and the 'ou' implies they are alternatives rather than combined.

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?

Specific verb+resource: marks pending messages as resolved without replying, and explicitly scopes it to a single message (id) or all of an agent's (with). It also names the sibling it is not (aicq_send), so an agent can distinguish it from other aicq_* tools without reading schemas.

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 an explicit alternative for the adjacent case: to reply and close a single message, use aicq_send with reply_to. That's a clear routing rule. It lacks exclusion guidance for when NOT to resolve at all, but the main fork is covered.

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