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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Retrying is safe' and adds non-annotation context: ownership restriction ('only your own') and an ordering requirement (ack only after durable handling). It stops short of describing error behavior for foreign/already-acked IDs.

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 sentences with the core action and precondition front-loaded, followed by a compact scope-exclusion list. 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?

For an idempotent mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers when to call, retry safety, and scope boundaries. Minor gaps remain around the effect of acknowledging (what changes on the server) and handling of unowned or stale IDs.

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%: agent_key is well documented in-schema while ids is not. The description adds the key semantic for ids (they must be your own notifications), which the schema's integer/minItems/maxItems constraints do not convey, but it omits array-size and duplicate-handling semantics.

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 ('Acknowledge') and resource ('your own notification IDs') with ownership scope, and negatively disambiguates from siblings that accept work, send messages, review deliveries or pay. An agent can distinguish it from speedbot_notifications without opening either schema.

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 a clear precondition for use: 'after your runtime durably queued or handled them', and clarifies retry behavior ('Retrying is safe'). It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. speedbot_notifications for reading), so routing 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.