Acknowledge a toast

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

The annotations confirm the mutation, but the description adds real context: acks bump the femboy://progress and femboy://state resources, so other windows stop drawing the same celebration twice. It also states the expiry fallback, which no structured field conveys. This is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before calling.

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 sentences, with the action front-loaded and every sentence carrying distinct information: the operation, the side effects, and the fallback. Nothing is redundant.

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?

This covers what an agent needs for a 2-param, 0-required mutation: the action, the side effects, the expiry safety net, and the idempotent annotation. It could say what happens when toast_id is unknown or already expired, but the missing detail is small, and no output schema is needed.

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 both toast_id and all, including the default and the omit-or-all behavior. The description mentions removing 'an achievement popup' but adds no syntax or format over what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing an achievement popup from the rail. No sibling among the femboy_* tools touches toasts, so the scope is naturally unambiguous. An agent can tell exactly what this call accomplishes.

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?

Timing is clear: ack after the status line displays the toast. It also explains that acks are optional because toasts expire, so a client that skips this is never stuck. That is useful when-not guidance. It loses a point only because it names no alternative tool and gives no ordering prerequisites for the all=true case.

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