Set acknowledgement mode

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds rich behavioral detail: rewrites sessionAckMode, regenerates the affected onMessage, adds/removes the activemq:Caller parameter and acknowledge/commit+rollback calls, and edits a .bal file in place. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Exactly four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then relevant details. Every sentence contributes: what, why, scope, and mechanism. No fluff or redundancy.

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 file-editing tool with no output schema, the description explains the what, why, how, and scope. It is sufficient for the agent to understand the operation. Not a 5 because it omits potential failure modes (e.g., file not found, malformed annotation), but given schema richness and annotations, it is quite complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: the service_name scoping ('Targets one service... or all services when omitted') is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Set/update the acknowledgement mode on listener service(s)'. It further details the mechanism (editing listener.bal, rewriting sessionAckMode, regenerating onMessage) and distinguishes itself from siblings like mq_write_config_toml and mq_add_listener by focusing on ack mode and source editing.

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?

Provides a clear context and exclusion: 'Ack mode cannot live in Config.toml (it is a compile-time constant), which is why this edits source.' This guides against using a configuration-based alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other sibling tools beyond the Config.toml note.

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