ack_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does much of it: it discloses that ack/approve binds an open decision, that the review is recorded in the audit trail regardless of verdict, and that the decision status is returned. It stops short of stating permissions required, idempotency, or what happens when the decision is not open, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, zero waste, with the core action and its effect front-loaded before the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect on decision state, audit recording, and the return value (decision status). Only edge cases such as already-bound decisions or permission requirements are unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the verdict default and the non-binding case. The description restates the verdict behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Acknowledge a decision version.' It explicitly contrasts itself with siblings propose_decision and decisions, so an agent can distinguish it 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 names the exact triggering condition ('a decision proposed by someone else that is awaiting acknowledgement') and routes the agent to alternatives for the adjacent tasks: propose_decision for creating/changing and decisions for finding ids and versions. Nothing is left to inference.

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