ack_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explains the mutation target, the important default-all-unread behavior, the return value, and boundaries versus sibling tools. It does not mention permission requirements or whether marking read is reversible, so it is strong but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by default behavior and sibling-tool routing. Every sentence adds useful selection or invocation context.

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 single optional array parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the action, default behavior, return value, and alternatives sufficiently for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that omitting itemIds marks every unread item and clarifies session scope, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: mark inbox items as read by id. It also scopes the no-id behavior to this session's inbox and explicitly distinguishes itself from ack_decision and answer.

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 gives explicit usage: pass ids to mark specific items, omit ids to mark every unread item. It also names alternatives for related actions, saying to use ack_decision for decisions and answer for questions.

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