ack_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unacknowledged messages may reappear after the configured acknowledgement timeout, but it does not cover important mutation details such as idempotency, invalid receipt behavior, required permissions, or what the acknowledgement changes.

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 two tight sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant timeout consequence without unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter acknowledgement tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: use the receipt from a handled batch and acknowledge before the timeout. It could be stronger with a note on idempotency or what happens with an invalid or expired receipt.

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 100%, and the single receipt parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the receipt is used for acknowledgement, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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: acknowledging a handled message batch using its receipt. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like read_inbox, send_message, and wait_for_message, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 message batch' implies the tool should be called after processing a batch, and the timeout warning gives a clear reason to acknowledge promptly. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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