acknowledge_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Marca eventos como reconocidos' implies a state mutation (acknowledging events), but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or the meaning of 'acknowledged'. The statement 'por ids o por antiguedad' gives selection context but not behavioral consequences.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and then specifies selection modes. There is no fluff or redundant wording. It loses a point only because its brevity comes at the cost of important missing details, but as prose it is efficient.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with three optional parameters, no required fields, and zero schema descriptions. It fails to explain the 'kind' parameter, usage context, or behavioral effects, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without extra inference or external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'ids' as the event IDs and 'antiguedad' as the age-based selection (likely before_minutes), which adds meaning beyond the bare titles. However, the 'kind' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving one of three parameters semantically orphaned.

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 ('Marca') and resource ('eventos'), and adds selection modes ('por ids o por antiguedad'). It clearly communicates marking events as acknowledged, which is distinct from the read-oriented siblings like get_events or wait_for_events. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings, so it misses the top tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of conditions or exclusions. It only says what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over get_events, wait_for_events, or other event-related siblings.

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