ack_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses the empty-ids special case, the allowed status values, the irreversible transition from completed, and the semantic warning that received does not mean task completion.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause earns its place: purpose, empty-ids rule, status enumeration, state constraint, and update requirement. There is no redundant text.

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?

Despite a rich behavioral summary, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations. It does not explain the required agent field, what result should contain, or how project is used. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but not the input ambiguity.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It covers status and partly ids, but the required agent parameter and the result/project parameters receive no explanation. An agent cannot confidently fill all fields from the description alone.

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 opening phrase '记录回执状态' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: recording acknowledgment/receipt statuses. The description further distinguishes this from siblings like send_note and read_notes by focusing on ack state transitions rather than sending or reading messages.

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?

The description gives concrete usage conditions: empty ids means acknowledging only undelivered/unacked messages for the current agent, while updating existing acknowledgments requires explicit ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions are clear enough to guide when to call this tool.

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