convoy_ack_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers real value: it declares the call idempotent, states the side effects (release protected result artifacts, eventually reap the job), and explains the automatic-acknowledgement path. It stops short of covering authorization requirements, failure/indeterminate-result semantics beyond the retry hint, or concurrency concerns.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the side effects and the usage routing. No filler, though the middle sentence packs two distinct consequences (artifact release and job reaping) that could be slightly clearer.

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 required-args-only mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior and usage well but omits parameter identification and any notion of what a failed or already-acknowledged call returns. It is adequate but has a real gap on the inputs the agent must supply.

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% across three required parameters (convoy_id, delivery_id, target_host_id), so the schema provides no meaning at all. The description refers obliquely to 'this controller' and 'the target' and 'one terminal Convoy delivery' but never maps those concepts to the parameter names, so an agent must guess which identifier is which.

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 names a specific verb (acknowledge) and a specific resource (a terminal Convoy delivery observed by this controller), and it distinguishes the operation from siblings by noting that convoy_get_artifact/convoy_save_artifact success paths auto-acknowledge. An agent can tell what this tool does and roughly where it sits relative to the artifact tools without opening any schema.

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 states both when the tool is NOT needed ('Verified artifact downloads and successful artifact saves acknowledge automatically') and when it IS needed ('for other terminal results or to retry an indeterminate acknowledgement'). This is explicit when/when-not guidance with an implied alternative path, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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