a4a_dialogue_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the most surprising trait: this produces no network ACK and no proof of an external action, so the agent won't assume delivery was confirmed remotely. It omits other mutation-relevant behavior — whether the lease is released, what happens on failure, idempotency, and permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the caveat. The 'no network ACK or proof' line slightly restates 'locally only' but earns its place as a warning against misinterpreting the result.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. The undefined status vocabulary and lease_token semantics are the real gaps an agent needs filled to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It only clarifies 'reconciled' (required for unknown work); seq, lease_token, and critically 'status' are left entirely unexplained — status is a bare string with no enum, so the agent must guess valid values like processed/failed.

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 and resource: marking this conversation's incoming seq as processed or failed, scoped to 'locally only'. That 'locally only, no network ACK' qualifier meaningfully separates it from siblings that perform real delivery or reconciliation, though it never names a sibling 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?

It gives one conditional rule — unknown work requires reconciled=True after explicit reconciliation — which implies this runs after a4a_dialogue_reconcile for unverifiable cases. But it never says when to call this versus a4a_dialogue_abandon or a4a_inbox_complete, nor what precondition (holding a lease) must be met.

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