native_subagent_started

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so this writes state, yet the description never says what is recorded or changed by 'acknowledging'. It does not cover whether the call is idempotent, whether it is required before subagent completion events, or what happens on a stale lease — all material for a non-destructive mutation.

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?

One tight sentence with the key subject front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 state-mutating lifecycle tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description omits the relationships that matter most: how it sequences with native_subagent_event and native_subagent_completed, and what state it transitions the ticket into. An agent cannot call it confidently from this text alone.

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% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it mentions none of them. Names like task_id and lease_id can be inferred from 'claimed ticket', but there is no explanation of thread_id (the host thread?) or of validity constraints.

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 gives a specific verb ('Acknowledge') and a specific event ('Codex host spawned a native subagent for a claimed LightWorker ticket'), so the purpose is inferable. But it leans on internal jargon and does not distinguish this from close siblings like native_subagent_event or native_subagent_completed, which read as near-identical lifecycle reports.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus native_subagent_event or native_subagent_completed, no mention of prerequisites (must the ticket already be claimed? must a lease exist?), and no ordering guidance. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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