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 burden. It does state the key behavioral outcome — acknowledged items no longer appear — which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether acknowledgment is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the underlying items beyond visibility.

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 one short, purposeful sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the practical result, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. Still, it leaves gaps: where the ids are obtained, whether acknowledgment is permanent, and what prerequisite 'handled' actually means. An agent could invoke it, but with only partial confidence.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'ids' parameter beyond hinting that items are involved. The schema says ids is a non-empty string array, but the description does not clarify that these are inbox item IDs or where they come from. The low schema coverage requires more compensation than this provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('handled inbox items'), and the expected consequence ('so they no longer appear'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like askew_inbox_list and askew_inbox_wait, making the action unambiguous.

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 phrase 'handled inbox items' gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate: after items have been processed and need acknowledgment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is reasonably inferable from the sibling set.

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