Confirm Context Delivery

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant context: it is a 'canonical mutation', explains idempotency key reuse ('reuse the same idempotencyKey'), replay behavior ('returns the first canonical result ID and version'), and safety checks. It also states human approval is not required and provides error handling logic for various failure modes.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, Effect, Human approval, Then, On failure). Every sentence adds value, though the length is substantial. It could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 2 enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral effects, idempotency, error handling, and post-conditions. Parameter semantics are the main gap. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall, it is quite complete.

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 only 8% (only projectId documented). The description mentions key concepts like idempotencyKey, expectedCursorVersion, fromVersion, toVersion, and status, but does not provide detailed semantics for each of the 13 parameters. For instance, transportAcknowledgementHash is not explained. The description partially compensates by contextualizing versioning and idempotency, but lacks per-parameter clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record authenticated transport acknowledgement and advance the cursor only for a valid delivered package.' It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('transport acknowledgement'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like record_context_consumption by focusing on delivery confirmation and cursor advancement.

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 explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, including alternatives like 'a narrower tool better matches the intent.' It also lists prerequisites: 'authenticated API authority and an API-authorized selected Project.' Error handling instructions further clarify when to use which recovery action.

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