acknowledge_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the key side effect (removing from unread messages) and mentions that a result is returned indicating success. It does not cover idempotency or error cases, but the disclosed behavior is sufficiently clear for a simple mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose, Args, Returns, and an Example. It is concise, front-loaded, and every section adds value. The example is illustrative without being verbose.

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, the description is complete: it explains purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, return type, and provides an example. The presence of an output schema means the return details need not be fully explained. It covers everything necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by providing an Args section with meaningful explanations: 'The ID of the message to acknowledge' and 'Your current task ID.' It also includes a usage example, giving the parameters practical context beyond their names and types.

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 opens with 'Mark a message as read/acknowledged,' which clearly states a specific action on a resource. It further explains the effect ('remove it from your unread messages') and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_messages, send_message, and broadcast_message, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after you've processed a message to remove it from your unread messages,' giving clear context for when the tool should be invoked. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling tools are implicitly different.

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