acknowledge_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permanence by default, reappearance after ttl expiry, that receipts are NOT verified server-side, and that unknown IDs are segregated into a missing bucket. Undisclosed gaps remain around idempotency, permissions, and what happens if an event is acked twice.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines: action plus valid states first, then ttl behavior, then the delivery_ref constraint, then the missing-ID behavior. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds a distinct rule.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers state semantics, ttl, receipt requirements, failure exclusions, and partial return behavior (missing IDs). The unaddressed consumer parameter and lack of auth/permission context are the remaining gaps.

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 compensate. It meaningfully explains reason (full enum), ttl_hours, and delivery_ref — including a requirement not visible in the schema. However, the consumer parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (记录/acknowledge) and resource (条目/entries) and enumerates the four valid ack states (processed, read, discarded, delivered) — value the schema does not provide since it defines reason as an unconstrained string. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like poll_feeds or get_proactive_events, but the ack semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete when/when-not rules: delivered requires a real delivery_ref, and events merely queued for push or with failed sends must NOT be marked delivered. It also explains the default (permanent consumption) versus ttl_hours behavior. It offers no explicit routing against sibling tools, which holds it below a 5.

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