bridge_ack

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that 'the durable cursor advances monotonically and is scoped to this channel.' This explains the side effect of acknowledgment, which is not covered by the annotations. However, it does not discuss error cases or idempotency behavior, though idempotency is hinted by the annotation.

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 very concise, two sentences long, with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds a behavioral note in the second sentence.

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?

The description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and one behavioral effect, but misses details like the meaning of metadata, how to obtain message_id, or error handling. With 4 parameters and a nested object, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know all inputs and expected outcomes, though output schema is present.

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 description does not explain the individual parameters. It mentions 'for a named consumer' but does not map that to consumer_id. The schema has 4 parameters with 0% coverage in the description, so the description fails to compensate. No information is given about channel, message_id, or metadata.

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 action: 'Acknowledge a message for a named consumer.' It specifies a specific verb and resource, and mentions scoping to channel, which distinguishes it from other bridge operations like send or receive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for using it. There is no reference to sibling tools or prerequisites.

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