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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth/assignment requirement, the exact state transition, and that a repeat call is refused by GoCanvas. The refusal-on-repeat is in mild tension with idempotentHint=true, but it is a refusal of a redundant no-op rather than a contradicting effect, so it reads as added context rather than a contradiction. It does not state what is returned.

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 compact clauses with zero filler, and the operation class ('WRITE:') plus the effect are front-loaded before the preconditions.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: it mutates, what state it requires, and how repeats behave. The only missing piece is whether the call returns anything the agent can rely on.

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% and the single dispatch_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional burden. It refers to 'a dispatch' generically and adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 (acknowledges/marks received), the resource (a dispatch), and the resulting state change (status becomes received), prefixed with 'WRITE:' so the mutation class is unambiguous. This clearly separates it from get_dispatch and list_dispatches siblings.

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 explicit preconditions: the dispatch must be in the 'assigned' state and assigned to the connected user. That tells the agent when the call will succeed, though it does not name an alternative (e.g., get_dispatch to verify state first) or say what to do on failure.

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