sage_task_notice_ack

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 idempotency on exact retry and two failure classes ('stale or unauthorized notices fail'). What it omits is the success response shape and any explicit auth/permission requirement beyond the implied 'authorization' check.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded on the core action, then exclusions, then retry/failure semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, scope exclusions, idempotency, and failure behavior. Only the returned result of a successful acknowledgement is unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'one task assignment notice' implies notification_id identifies a single notice, but no format, source, or retrieval hint (e.g., from sage_backlog output) is given. Adequate but thin for a single-parameter tool.

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 (acknowledge) and resource (task assignment notice), and explicitly rules out confusable operations: 'does not accept a message, start a task, or change task ownership.' This lets an agent separate it from sage_message_* and sage_task siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition sequence ('after reviewing sage_backlog and verifying current ownership and authorization') naming the relevant sibling, plus negative scope (does not accept a message, start a task, or change ownership). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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