askew_inbox_ack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the per-item nature of acknowledgement, persistence in phone history, and the return value. It does not cover error handling for invalid ids, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary effect, then delivers usage guidance, caveats, and return value in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, where the ids come from, that the action cannot be undone, that items persist in phone history, and what the return value is. The only unaddressed area is partial failure behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by instructing the agent to pass ids exactly as shown in inbox output and clarifying that acknowledgement is per item. This is useful operational context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark inbox items as handled' and explicitly distinguishes itself from askew_inbox_list and askew_inbox_wait by stating they will stop returning acknowledged items. This makes the tool's role unambiguous among its 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to acknowledge items so list and wait operations no longer return them. It also provides a practical usage hint ('Pass the ids exactly as shown'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing ack tool among the siblings.

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