umouse_ack_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses idempotency, that only inbox state changes, and that voice content is not executed — useful behavioral context for a mutation. It omits error responses and what happens for an unknown event_id, so not a 5.

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?

Three compact clauses with no waste, and the core action plus idempotency are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes; only minor verbosity from the trailing scope clause.

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 1-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the essential scope and precondition. It still lacks any mention of failure behavior for invalid event_ids, which an agent reasoning about errors would want.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It ties event_id to identifying the voice message to acknowledge, adding some semantic value, but the uuid format and identifier origin are left to 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?

States a specific verb (确认/acknowledge) and resource (voice message by event_id), and makes the action scope clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like umouse_voice_inbox or umouse_wait_voice, though it never names them explicitly.

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 real precondition (messages without completed transcription cannot be acknowledged) and notes idempotency, which helps decide when it is callable. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as umouse_voice_inbox or umouse_voice_status.

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