Ack Token

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: acks are audited, explicit ack grants a 24h reissue lock, governance auto-acks produce a ~1h lock, and unacked tokens remain freely reissuable. It also mentions the failure-mode benefit ('session dying between claim and persistence no longer strands the identity'), which is beyond what the schema or annotations would reveal.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and call timing, then layers detailed rationale without filler. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: audit, lock duration, auto-ack alternative, and unacked reissue behavior. It is dense but appropriately sized for a lifecycle-critical tool.

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 two-string-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, what happens if you do, what happens if you do not, and how it relates to the governance-call auto-ack path. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value details is not a gap here.

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 explain both parameters, but it only clarifies the token concept (governance token, plaintext to durable storage) and never mentions 'author'. The author parameter remains undocumented; the description adds no meaning for it beyond the schema's bare name and type.

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: confirming that a governance token was persisted, tying it to a concrete lifecycle stage (v2.1 phase 2; v2.3 explicit tier). It clearly separates an explicit ack from a governance-call auto-ack, which prevents confusion with the governance sibling tools.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call this right after writing the plaintext to durable storage (and reading it back)') and contrasts it with the alternative auto-ack path that produces only a short lock. It also warns to persist before any governance use and explains the consequence of not acking, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is required.

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