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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that acknowledgment is durable and changes visibility in advisories and list_feedback_responses. This goes beyond the structured hints, although it does not describe the output shape or any side effects on the underlying feedback records.

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?

Three concise statements are packed with relevant information: the action, the precondition, the effect on other tools, and the tool's durability/idempotence. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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 mutation with a single well-described parameter and an existing output schema, this description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what side effects to expect. An agent has enough context to call it appropriately.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (response_ids as UUIDs returned by list_feedback_responses), and the tool description reinforces the purpose but does not add parameter-level detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline applies.

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 specifies the action ('Acknowledge feedback responses'), its timing ('after the agent has processed them'), and its observable effect ('stop processed responses from appearing in advisories and list_feedback_responses'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_feedback_responses or submit_feedback.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to call this tool ('after the agent has processed them') and what outcome to expect. It does not name alternative tools or edge cases, but the intended trigger and post-condition are clear enough for a competent agent.

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