Confirm a KLYPIX coordination note was consumed

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the action is a durable receipt and that identity, token, state, lock, and write mismatches fail closed, never silently marking consumption. This goes beyond the annotation fields without contradicting them.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool, the second states when to call it, and the third specifies requirements and failure behavior. The critical usage condition is front-loaded and nothing extraneous is included.

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 small, three-parameter receipt tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, when to call it, what inputs are needed, and what happens on mismatch. The annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the overall contract is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about message_id and offer_token, though it adds the 'one-time' nature of the offer token and ties the parameters to the fail-closed matching behavior. There is only marginal added meaning beyond the 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 identifies a specific operation: confirming that a coordination note was consumed after being offered into context. It clearly distinguishes this receipt/consumption marker from sibling tools like brain_message or brain_note by emphasizing that the note was already offered and acknowledged by a later independent action.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Call only after the note has actually been incorporated into the receiving agent's work.' It also states the required inputs, but it does not mention exclusions or explicitly route the agent away from alternative tools.

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