Acknowledge inbox delivery

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's non-destructive claim is consistent. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Packet bytes remain retained for audit and this tool never deletes them,' which reassures the agent about side effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 simple acknowledgement tool with only two parameters (one required) and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, the preconditions, and the key safety behavior. There are no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%: both actorName and deliveryId have clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') with a clear resource ('delivery as acknowledged') and explicitly lists valid prior conditions ('reviewed, imported, or intentionally skipped'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_inbox, get_inbox_delivery, and pull_inbox_packet.

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 for when to use the tool (after a delivery has been reviewed, imported, or intentionally skipped). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is unmistakable, giving the agent enough guidance to select it appropriately.

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