acknowledge_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 states the operation is a 'mutation', indicating a write operation, but does not disclose effects such as state changes, permissions required, or reversible behavior. The example shows input fields but not what happens when the mutation is executed.

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 relatively compact, but it is not front-loaded with a clear purpose. The variable list repeats schema information, while the long JSON example is useful but not structured into an easy-to-parse explanation. It is terse yet lacks the initial clarity needed for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain what acknowledging a task does, when to use it, or what response to expect. The example JSON provides some context, but the overall behavior and selection criteria are missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% for top-level parameters, the 'input' parameter is opaque in the schema (only 'GraphQL: AcknowledgeTaskInput!'). The description's example variables provide concrete insight into the expected structure, including actionMethod and taskId, which adds meaningful value beyond the schema. However, the listed variables at the start are redundant with 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 reads 'Tasks · mutation acknowledgeTask', which essentially restates the tool name and GraphQL operation type without explaining what acknowledging a task does. It provides no specific verb+resource description beyond the name, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_task or assign_task.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists variables and an example, with no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. A knowledgeable agent would have to infer from the name 'acknowledgeTask' that it is used to acknowledge a task.

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