acknowledge_personal_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states a usage precondition but does not explain what acknowledgment changes, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens if the message was not consumed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key precondition is placed prominently and the sentence is appropriately sized for its high-level purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain more about the acknowledgment behavior and its parameters. It provides only a high-level precondition, leaving significant gaps for a likely state-changing tool.

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 the two parameters, especially the required 'id' and optional 'sender.' It mentions neither parameter and adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb, 'Acknowledge,' and a specific resource, 'a personal-agent reply,' with an added timing condition. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic sibling tool 'acknowledge.'

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 phrase 'only after this originating session actually consumed it' gives a clear prerequisite for when to use the tool. It implies when not to use it, but does not name alternatives such as the generic 'acknowledge' or 'message_status' tools.

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