Ack (complete) a task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral requirement of lease fencing via fencingToken, which is essential for correctness. It also notes that `result` is optional and stored. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but for a simple ack operation, the key behavioral trait is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives the essential requirement and optional parameter. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and the critical fencing requirement. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially within the sibling set of task operations. It doesn't detail return values or edge cases, but these are not necessary for the tool's basic use.

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 only 33% (only fencingToken has a schema description). The description compensates by clarifying the meaning and origin of `fencingToken` ('from the claim (lease fencing)') and by explaining the optional `result` parameter ('optional stored outcome string'). `taskId` is implicit in the context of a task operation, so the description adds sufficient meaning beyond the bare 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 the action clearly: 'Mark a claimed task done.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing ack_task from siblings like nack_task or extend_task. The title reinforces it as 'Ack (complete) a task', so the purpose is 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 description provides a clear prerequisite: the tool must carry the fencingToken from the claim, implying it is used only after a task has been claimed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the phrase 'claimed task done' makes the intended usage clear. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the core when-to-use is present.

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