acknowledge_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that it sets both read_ts and ack_ts, that it is idempotent, and that prior timestamps are preserved and returned. It does not mention auth or whether registration_token is required, which is a real gap for a 5-param mutation.

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?

Well-structured with clear headers, front-loaded purpose, and a compact example. Slightly padded: the Returns section restates what the output schema already provides, and the example is long, but nothing is egregiously wasteful.

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?

Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavior, idempotency and return shape well. However, two of five parameters (format, registration_token) are completely unaddressed, leaving an agent unable to decide whether registration_token is needed to call it correctly.

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 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It offers no parameter semantics anywhere: format and registration_token are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and project_key, agent_name and message_id appear only as literal values in the example without explanation.

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 (a message addressed to an agent), and the parenthetical 'and mark as read' clarifies scope. The behavior section distinguishes it from the sibling mark_message_read by noting it sets both read_ts and ack_ts. No explicit sibling naming, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section says to respond to messages with ack_required=true and that it acts as a lightweight non-textual reply. This is clear context, but it never names alternatives such as reply_message or mark_message_read, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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