Acknowledge messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the effect: messages become read and leave the unread inbox. This is sufficient for a simple state-change operation, though it doesn't mention potential edge cases or idempotency.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It explains the core action and outcome. It could optionally mention whether the operation is idempotent or reversible, but for a straightforward ack operation, this is adequate.

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 already fully describes both parameters ('Message ids to acknowledge' for ids, 'Agent acknowledging the messages' for agent) with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mark messages as read for an agent so they drop out of the unread inbox.' It uses a specific verb ('mark as read') and resource ('messages'), and the consequence ('drop out of unread inbox') distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_send or bridge_inbox.

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 clear context: it's used to acknowledge messages for an agent, implying after reading them from the unread inbox. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is sharp enough to infer when to use it.

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